Apparently, “Defend yourself with a legal firearm” is not part of the new Department of Homeland Security curriculum. They have now resorted to a training video that encourages you to use scissors to protect yourself in the event that you are a victim of a shooting. Perhaps this is an upgrade from them instructing border patrol agents to run and hide.
You better get ready, because there are a whole host of signs that economic trouble is on the horizon. U.S. economic growth slipped into negative territory during the fourth quarter of 2012. That was the first time that has happened in more than three years. Several important measures of manufacturing activity have also contracted in recent weeks, and consumer confidence is way down. There is a tremendous amount of economic pessimism in the air right now, and Americans are pulling enormous amounts of money out of our banks and they are buying up precious metals at unprecedented rates. Meanwhile, our “leaders” seem very confused about what is happening. For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continues to insist that we are “in a recovery“, and some other Democrats are calling the latest GDP numbers “the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you’ll ever see“. On the other hand, the Federal Reserve says that economic growth has “paused” in recent months, and therefore a continuation of their latest quantitative easing scheme is necessary. Well, no matter how hard any of them try to spin the numbers, there is no way that they are going to get them to look good. Despite four years of outrageous “stimulus” spending by the federal government, despite four years of record low interest rates, and despite four years of unprecedented money printing by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy continues to perform miserably. Later this year the federal government will probably finally acknowledge that we have entered another recession, even though the truth is that if the federal government used honest numbers they would indicate that we are already in one. In any event, nobody should have ever expected that our debt-fueled prosperity would last forever. When the debt bubble that we have been living in completely bursts, a “recession” will be the least of our worries.
Hopefully this little stretch of false economic hope that we have been living in will last for a little while longer. I don’t think that too many people are very eager to repeat the horrible economic pain that we experienced back in 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, we never fully recovered from that last downturn and now the incredibly foolish decisions that our “leaders” continue to make have made another major economic downturn inevitable.
Personally, I would very much prefer for 2013 to be a year of peace and prosperity for America. But at this point there appears to be a great deal of downward momentum for the economy.
The following are 15 signs that you better get prepared for the Obama recession of 2013…
#1 The mainstream media was absolutely shocked when it was announced that U.S. GDP actually contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent during the fourth quarter of 2012. This was the first contraction that the official numbers have shown in more than three years. But of course the truth is that the official numbers always make things appear better than they really are. According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, U.S. GDP growth has actually been continuously negative all the way back to 2005 once you account “for distortions in government inflation usage and methodological changes that have resulted in a built-in upside bias to official reporting.”
#2 For the entire year of 2012, official U.S. GDP growth was only about 1.5%. According to Art Cashin, every time economic growth has fallen that low (below 2 percent annually) the U.S. economy has alwaysended up going into a recession.
#3 According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence in the United States has hit its lowest level in more than a year.
#4 For the week ending January 26th, initial claims for unemployment rose to 368,000. In future weeks, watch to see if it goes above 400,000. If we hit that level, that will be a sign of real trouble for the economy.
#5 During the first full week of January, an astounding $114 billion was pulled out of U.S. banks. That is the largest amount that we have seen moved out of U.S. banks in one week since 2001.
#6 The U.S. Mint was on pace to sell more silver eagles during the first month of 2013 than it did during the entire year of 2007. Why is so much silver being sold all of a sudden?
#7 The payroll tax hike that went into effect in January has reduced the paychecks of average American workers by about $100 a month.
#8 Several important measures of manufacturing activity along the east coast missed expectations by a huge margin in January. The following summary is from a recent Zero Hedge article…
So much for the latest “recovery.” While everyone continued to forget that in the New Normal marketsdo not reflect the underlying economy in the least, and that the all time highs in the Russell 2000 shouldindicate that the US economy has never been better, things in reality took a deep dive for the worse, at least according to the Empire State Fed, the Philly Fed, and now the Richmond Fed, all of which missed expectations by a huge margin, and are now deep in contraction territory. Moments ago, the Richmond Fed reported that the Manufacturing Index imploded from a 9 in November, 5 in December and missed expectations of a 5 print at -12: this was the biggest miss to expectations since September 2009.
#9 An astounding 33 percent of all “subprime student loans” are at least 90 days past due. Back in 2007, that number was only at 24 percent. Could this be evidence that the student loan debt bubble is beginning to burst?
#10 Time Inc. has just announced that it will be eliminating hundreds of jobs.
#11 Blockbuster recently announced that they are closing hundreds of stores and eliminating about 3,000 jobs.
#12 Toy maker Hasbro has announced that the size of their workforce will be reduced by about 10 percent.
#13 According to a new Pew Research study that was just released,one out of every seven adults in the United States is financially supporting their kids and their parents at the same time. Pew Research is calling it “the Sandwich Generation”.
#14 According to one recent Gallup poll, 65 percent of all Americans believe that 2013 will be a year of “economic difficulty“, and 50 percent of all Americans believe that the “best days” of America are now behind us.
#15 According to a different Gallup poll, Americans are now more pessimistic about where the U.S. economy will be five years from now than Gallup has ever recorded before.
So what is Barack Obama doing about all of this?
Not much.
Actually, he is shutting down his much ballyhooed “Council on Jobs and Competitiveness”. It last convened more than a year ago on Jan. 17th, 2012, and apparently Obama does not feel that it is needed any longer.
Of course we all know that it was just a political stunt to begin with.
Sadly, the truth is that both parties have been leading us down a road toward economic oblivion. The past four years under Obama have been absolutely nightmarish, and even though the Republicans have been in control of the House for the last couple of years they have done very little to even slow him down.
Yes, I tend to criticize Obama’s economic policies a lot, and rightfully so, but neither political party is willing to tell the American people the truth.
It hasn’t mattered which party has occupied the White House or which party has been in control of Congress. The debt bubble that we have been living in has just continued to grow.
And all bubbles eventually pop.
The mainstream media is endlessly obsessed with the little fights that the Republicans and the Democrats are having, but they never talk about the bigger picture.
The prosperity that we are enjoying today is the result of the biggest debt binge in the history of the world.
We have stolen a giant mountain of money from our children and our grandchildren and we have destroyed their futures.
People can debate about whether the next “recession” has already started or not, but the truth is that what we are experiencing now is nothing compared to what is coming.
In the end, we will pay a great price for our decades of foolishness.
The U.S. economy is going to completely collapse, and the last few years have only been the very beginning of that process.
Over 1000 Green Berets have signed a letter re-asserting their oath to support and defend the Constitution by protecting the second amendment rights of American citizens.
The letter, which originally featured at ProfessionalSoldiers.com, was written by “current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers.”
It highlights the fact that the Constitution was drafted primarily as a means of protecting citizens against “governmental tyranny and/or oppression,” further citing the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who outlined the purpose of the second amendment when he stated, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes,” states the letter. “At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”
The legal precedent of the right to keep and bear arms which includes weapons “in common use” by the military is also documented, as is the definition of the term “militia,” which as Court Justice Scalia ruled in 2008, “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
Tackling numerous sacred cows brought up by gun control advocates, the letter points out that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was completely useless in preventing mass shootings because instead of using high capacity magazines, shooters like Columbine killer Eric Harris simply bought more 10 round magazines and changed them more often.
The letter also documents how, despite its draconian gun ban in 1996, gun crime in the United Kingdom has continually increased, whereas firearm related homicides in the United States decreased by 9 per cent five years after the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban.
At the end of the letter, eight steps are recommended to reduce gun violence while still maintaining the sanctity of the second amendment, including a repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which allows shooters to carry out their massacres unimpeded by responsible gun owners.
Stricter border controls to tackle the flow of illegal firearms from Mexico are also advocated, as is the return of firearm safety programs to schools. The letter also discourages the proliferation of violence in movies and video games, citing recent scientific studies which draw a correlation between desensitization to violence and aggressive behavior in young people and adults.
Amidst the Obama administration’s effort to curtail the second amendment through both executive orders and legislation, numerous top law enforcement officials from across the country have gone public to assert that they will not follow federal orders to confiscate firearms.
Last week,Gilberton, Pennsylvania Police Chief Mark Kessler promised not to enforce unconstitutional laws that eviscerate second amendment rights.
“I will take my uniform off and I will stand with freedom before I stand with tyrannical thugs,” he stated.
Read the full letter signed by the Green Berets below.
————————————————————
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.
First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”
“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’
The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.
A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”
So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?
The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.
If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.
7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.
In what seems to be an increasingly common occurrence as the push for gun control continues, a shooting at an Atlanta Middle School has left at least two wounded and the corporate media once again pushing fear onto the masses.
According to a report by the Associated Press, two suspects are in custody and one teen was rushed to the hospital after being shot in the head.
School officials say two people were injured in the shooting. One 14-year-old victim was rushed to the hospital after being shot in the head, the Associated Press reports.
Atlanta Fire Cpt. Marian McDaniel says the shooting victim was taken to Grady Hospital but information on the teen’s condition was not immediately available.
WAGA reports the student was shot outside of the school and was alert and conscious before she was taken to the hospital.
McDaniel says a teacher suffered minor cuts and bruises but was treated on the scene at Price Middle School.
Alford said the shooting suspect was apprehended by police. Atlanta Police spokesperson Carlos Campos said the suspect was tentatively identified as a student. Campos went on to say the shooting happened outside the school building.
Price Middle School has been placed on lockdown, and parents are being asked not to come to the school to avoid any additional confusion in the area.
According to 11Alive’s Julie Wolfe and Sam Crenshaw on the scene, the assistant principal of Price Middle School came out to tell assembled parents that their children are okay.
Although this shooting most likely had nothing to do with a law abiding citizen having the ability to own a firearm, the corporate controlled media and elements of the federal government are sure to once again seize upon this tragedy to push their political goal of disarming the American people.
We believe that the world has reached a turning point as the corporate funded and controlled mainline media has become obsolete as humans are now seeking the truth. Intellihub.com™ strives and will continue to uphold it’s duties to inform humanity of what is really taking place in the world around them. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Israel has conducted airstrikes in Syria based on “suspicions” of chemical weapon transfers, in a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, international law, and in direct violation of Syria’s sovereignty. The Guardian in its report titled, “Israel carries out air strike on Syria,” claims:
“Israeli warplanes have attacked a target close to the Syrian-Lebanese border following several days of heightened warnings from government officials over Syria’s stockpiles of weapons.”
It also stated:
“Israel has publicly warned that it would take military action to prevent the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon or “global jihadists” fighting inside Syria. Israeli military intelligence is said to be monitoring the area round the clock via satellite for possible convoys carrying weapons.”
In reality, these “global jihaidists” are in fact armed and funded by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel since at least as early as 2007. They are also in fact the direct beneficiaries of Israel’s recent aggression. The Israeli “suspicions” of “weapon transfers” of course, remain unconfirmed, because the purpose of the attack was not to prevent the transfer of “chemical weapons” to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but to provoke a wider conflict aimed not at Israel’s defense, but at salvaging the West’s floundering proxy terrorist forces inside Syria attempting to subvert and overthrow the Syrian nation.
The silence from the United Nations is deafening. While Turkey openly harbors foreign terrorists, arming and funding them with Western, Saudi, and Qatari cash as they conduct raids on neighboring Syria, any Syrian attack on Turkish territory would immediately result in the United Nations mobilizing. Conversely, Turkey is allowed, for years, to conduct air strikes and even partial ground invasions of neighboring Iraq to attack Kurdish groups accused of undermining Turkish security. It is clear the same double standard has long applied to Israel.
Israel, along with the US & Saudi Arabia, are Al Qaeda’s chief sponsors.
It must be remembered that as far back as 2007, it was admitted by US, Saudi and Lebanese officials that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were intentionally arming, funding, and organizing these “global jihadists” with direct ties to Al Qaeda for the explicit purpose of overthrowing the governments of Syria and Iran.
Reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” it was stated (emphasis added):
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
Of Israel it specifically stated:
“The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.”
Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region:
“The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.””
It may interest readers to know that while France invades and occupies large swaths of Mali in Africa, accusing the Qataris of funding and arming Al Qaeda-linked terrorist groups in the region, France, the US, and Israel are working in tandem with the Qataris to fund and arm these very same groups in Syria.
In fact, the US-based think-tank, the Brookings Institution literally has a “Doha Center” based in Qatar while US-Israeli citizen Haim Saban’s Brookings “Saban Center” conducts meetings and has many of its board of directors based likewise in Doha, Qatar. Doha also served as the venue for the creation of the West’s most recent “Syrian Coalition,” headed by an unabashed supporter of Al Qaeda, Moaz al-Khatib.
These are part of the brick and mortar manifestation of the conspiracy documented by Seymour Hersh in 2007.
The Wall Street Journal, also in 2007, reported on the US Bush Administration’s plans of creating a partnership with Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, noting the group is the ideological inspiration for linked terror organizations including Al Qaeda itself. In the article titled, “”To Check Syria, U.S. Explores Bond With Muslim Brothers,” it states:
“On a humid afternoon in late May, about 100 supporters of Syria’s largest exile opposition group, the National Salvation Front, gathered outside Damascus’s embassy here to protest Syrian President Bashar Assad’s rule. The participants shouted anti-Assad slogans and raised banners proclaiming: “Change the Regime Now.”
The NSF unites liberal democrats, Kurds, Marxists and former Syrian officials in an effort to transform President Assad’s despotic regime. But the Washington protest also connected a pair of more unlikely players — the U.S. government and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
The article would also report:
“U.S. diplomats and politicians have also met with legislators from parties connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, Egypt and Iraq in recent months to hear their views on democratic reforms in the Middle East, U.S. officials say. Last month, the State Department’s intelligence unit organized a conference of Middle East experts to examine the merits of engagement with the Brotherhood, particularly in Egypt and Syria.”
It describes the ideological and operational links between the Brotherhood and Al Qaeda:
“Today, the Brotherhood’s relationship to Islamist militancy, and al Qaeda in particular, is the source of much debate. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders cite the works of the Brotherhood’s late intellectual, Sayyid Qutb, as an inspiration for their crusade against the West and Arab dictators. Members of Egyptian and Syrian Brotherhood arms have also gone on to take senior roles in Mr. bin Laden’s movement.”
Yet despite all of this, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, along with Israel and Turkey are openly conspiring with them, and have now for years been arming and funding these very sectarian extremist, terrorist groups across the Arab World, from Libya to Egypt, and now in and around Syria.
Israel’s fears of these terrorists acquiring “chemical weapons” is absurd. They have already acquired them with US, NATO, British, Saudi, Qatari and even Israeli help in Libya in 2011. In fact, these very Libyan terrorists are spearheading the foreign militant groups flooding into Syria through the Turkish-Syrian border.
What Israel’s strike may really mean.
Indeed, Israel’s explanation as to why it struck neighboring Syria is tenuous at best considering its long, documented relationship with actually funding and arming the very “global jihaidists” it fears weapons may fall into the hands of. Its fears of Hezbollah are likewise unfounded – Hezbollah, had it, the Syrians, or the Iranians been interested in placing chemical weapons in Lebanon, would have done so already, and most certainly would do so with means other than conspicuous convoys simply “crossing the border.” Hezbollah has already proven itself capable of defeating Israeli aggression with conventional arms, as demonstrated during the summer of 2006.
In reality, the pressure placed on Syria’s borders by both Israel and its partner, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey in the north, is part of a documented plan to relieve pressure on the Western, Israeli, Saudi-Qatari armed and funded militants operating inside Syria.
Image: The Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
….
Brookings describes how Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, combined with Turkey’s aligning of vast amounts of weapons and troops along its border to the north, could help effect violent regime change in Syria:
“In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.” -page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Of course, airstrikes inside Syria go beyond “posturing,” and indicate perhaps a level of desperation in the West who appear to have elected their chief villain, Israel, to incrementally “intervene” just as they had planned in regards to attacking Iran - also documented by Brookings in a report titled, “Which Path to Persia?“
In regards to Iran, in Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report, it states specifically (emphasis added):
“Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.
However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion).” -page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
And in this statement we can gather insight behind both Israel’s otherwise irrational belligerent posture throughout its brief history, as well as its most recent act of unprovoked aggression against Syria. Israel’s role is to play the “bad guy.” As a regional beachhead for Western corporate-financier interests, it provides a “foot in the door” to any of the West’s many desired conflicts. By bombing Syria, it hopes to provoke a wider conflict – an intervention the West has desired and planned for since it tipped off Syria’s violent conflict in 2011.
For Syria and its allies – the goal now must be to deter further Israeli aggression and avoid wider conflict at all costs. If NATO’s proxy terrorist forces are as weak as they appear – incapable of tactical or strategic gains, and tapering off into desperate terrorist attacks, it is only a matter of time before NATO’s campaign grinds to a halt. As mentioned before, such a failure on NATO’s part will be the beginning of the end for it, and the Western interests that have been using it as a tool to achieve geopolitical hegemony.
Israel should be expected to commit to increasingly desperate acts to provoke Syria and Iran – as its leadership represent directly corporate-financier interests abroad, not the Israeli people, or their best interests (including peace and even survival). For the people of Israel, they must realize that their leadership indeed does not represent them or their best interests and is able, willing, and even eager to spend their lives and fortunes in the service of foreign, corporate-financier interests and global hegemony.
Coincidence has it that I`ve recently stumbled upon two completely opposite articles on “Obama`s wars”. Now, I don`t like to call these wars “Obama`s”, just because he dragged us into them. They`re OUR wars. We, American citizens, have to suffer the consequences. Let alone our troops and their families, living in fear every single day. But let`s leave this discussion for some other time and move on the articles that caught my attention.
The first one was published by The Washington Post and it presents Obama as the anti-war hero. The wise man who hurts inside every time someone whispers “war” anywhere around him. The heart-melting peace-lover who believes diplomacy is the key to solving any conflict.
Here`s a snippet to see exactly what I`m talking about:
“When I interviewed President Obama in the summer of 2010 for my book “Obama’s Wars,” his deeply rooted aversion to war was evident. As I reported in the book, I handed Obama a copy of a quotation from Rick Atkinson’s World War II history, “The Day of Battle,” and asked him to read it. Obama stood and read:
“And then there was the saddest lesson, to be learned again and again . . . that war is corrupting, that it corrodes the soul and tarnishes the spirit, that even the excellent and the superior can be defiled, and that no heart would remain unstained.”
“I sympathize with this view,” Obama told me. “See my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.”
I had listened to the speech when he gave it, Dec. 10, 2009, and later read it, but I dug it out again. And there it was:
“The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious” — Churchill had called it that — “and we must never trumpet it as such. So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary and war at some level is an expression of human folly.” (www.washingtonpost.com)
So it`s crazy to start a war, but sometimes it`s necessary. That`s Obama`s doctrine on war, in just 13 words. But the answer that demands an answer here is WHEN is it truly necessary to start (or take part in) a war? Because, by the looks of it, Obama thinks every war on the planet automatically becomes U.S.A.`s responsibility.
Which leads me to the second article I`ve read on Russia Today, with Ron Paul as leading “actor”:
For those of you who don`t know what the Mali issue is all about, let me tell you a little bit about it. This is a French intervention in Mali, as a direct result of the rapid advance of rebel troops into Mali’s military defenses in Mopti(the first town on the government-controlled side, located in the center of this African country).
But “what began as a French offensive has now grown to include seven other countries, including logistical support from the U.S. and Europe. The United States is providing communications and transport help, while Britain is sending C17 aircrafts to help Mali’s allies transport troops to the frontlines.”(usatoday.com)
Remember that the French intervention is an offensive, NOT a defensive move. So why was it absolutely necessary to get our hands dirty with other nations` blood? What about the “human tragedy” that every military conflict brings? Is Afghanistan not enough already? Over 2000 American soldiers have already died there and the Mighty Goal of this war has not even been reached (and never will!). We`re now forced to get our troops out of there without signing any peace agreement with the talibans. Allegedly, we have a new goal now:
“The once ambitious American plans for ending the war are now being replaced bythe far more modest goal of setting the stage for the Afghans to work out a deal among themselves in the years after most Western forces depart.”(www.theatlanticwire.com)
If we follow this logic, the U.S. is becoming the needy kid who`s trying too hard to get the parents back together. EVERYONE`s parents. At all costs. And when there will be nothing to shoot in Afghanistan and no French invasion in Mali, this needy kid will keep on sniffing for parents to make up, even if that`s the last thing they want. And, what`s more tragic, even if that`s the last thing WE want. Because the separation between “us” and “them” is even worse in times of war: “they” get away with the “human folly” and “we” have to deal with the “human tragedy”. Maybe that`s what Obama actually meant, in his regular two-faced manner.
Amid reports that Walmart stores around the country would hold off on re-stocking their shelves of ammunition in the wake of the Newtown Sandy Hook shooting, the world’s largest retail chain says no such policy has been implemented.
But, due to surging demand for ammunition ahead of what many believe is an attempted gun grab by the government, a Walmart spokesperson said on Thursday that the company will limit customers to three boxes of ammunition per day:
“In order to take care of as many customers as possible, starting Thursday, Jan. 24, all ammunition sales were limited to three boxes per customer, per day as supply is limited at this time,” spokeswoman Ashley Hardie told Reuters on Wednesday.
Walmart was a charter member of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s coalition against illegal guns and adopted a 10-point code established by the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership that goes beyond what the law requires.
Data released on Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System showed that nine of the top 10 days for firearms checks from Nov. 30, 1998, to Jan. 27, 2013, including Dec. 14, 2012, occurred since Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School and then shot and killed himself. Lanza also killed his mother before the school massacre.
A purported Jihadist web site has posted dire warnings from Al Qaeda, which suggest an attack on the continental United States has been planned for the near future.
Curiously, it seems the Al Qaeda operative who posted the remarks online took his talking points from similar warnings issued by Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano last year. Napolitano was quoted as saying that security and intelligence efforts would be more focused on the shifting terrorist threat towards “lone wolf attackers.”
In the posting from Al Queda, the organization indicates that “lone wolf” operations would be one method used in the coming strikes against domestic U.S. interests.
The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”
The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.
“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.
The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”
Under a section of the post on the method of the attacks, the unidentified writer said the strikes would be “group and lone-wolf operations, in addition to the use of booby-trapped vehicles.”
Al Qaeda, the organization responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 according to a government investigation, has been working closely with U.S. foreign intelligence operatives throughout the course of the Syrian uprising which began in 2012.
It is not clear if the Al Qaeda faction warning of strikes against U.S. homeland based targets is the same organization as the Al Queda group responsible for the 2001 terror attacks.
Frank Drover is a co-editor and contributor for The Daily Sheeple, an alternative media hub for leading headlines, head lies, opinion, and commentary. Wake the flock up!
This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.
In answer to the question posed in the title of this piece, this writer does not have a definitive answer one way or the other. There are, however, several aspects of this trailer that point to this being a psy-op. If you are on a website that would post this article, then there is very good chance you’ve seen the trailer for the movie Gray Stateas seen below.
Condensed, the movie addresses what it would be like if FEMA began round-ups and executions of US citizens. The trailer, 2:40 long, seems to have one goal in mind; to instill fear in the viewer. It is devoted to violent graphic scenes of round-ups; direct head shot executions and intimidating footage of faceless FEMA soldiers goose stepping toward defiant, rioting citizens. The trailer is laced with heavy machine gun sounds, buzzing helicopters, people screaming, and death; lots of death.
On the surface, one might applaud the intrepid director and crew, facing down Hollywood (much ado is made of this fact in interviews), and, even more so, having the stones to make a movie depicting our government in such a harsh light. But the surface is just that; a surface and we live in an age of deception.
Thanks to the Internet reformation, the plans of the globalists have been laid bare. The tricks they employ are numerous and come at us from every angle. This movie trailer would appear to satisfy two of their primary objectives within the paradigm of this deception. The first objective of the trailer is to instill fear and hopelessness into the population, which it effectively does. The second feat accomplished is to give warning of what is yet to come.
It is well documented that globalist-controlled Hollywood is complicit in these types of ‘pre-alert’ efforts by allowing television shows and movies to become vehicles of warning to the populace. There is massive evidence pointing to this modus operandi; 9-11, here and Sandy Hook, here are two recent examples. There are many more, but this space does not allow for a list, and this is not the focus of this piece.
We cannot claim that we weren’t warned in advance of any number of calamities; those in the past and those yet to come. The globalist stamp is all over this project. The globalists, (one might think not human by their actions) are just people at the end of the day, and people make mistakes. The Aurora, Co. shooting was rife with errors, here, and here. Sandy Hook was even worse, here, from a production standpoint (which from a globalist view was a production, no less so than a staging ofOthello at the Met).
There are a number of ‘tells’ associated with this project. A ‘tell’ is a term used to describe the actions (and thus indicators) of a deception. Most commonly referred to in conjunction with gambling and gamblers themselves, the term is apropos here as applied to markers that this trailer is (in all likelihood unbeknownst to the entire cast and crew) a project of globalist emanation. The trailer focuses on real-life proposals by the elites, such as RFID chips, QE IV, and martial law. Sub themes include empty grocery shelves, cameras in homes, the ripping apart of loved ones and the heavy boot of the state. At the end of the trailer, the last shot shows a pyramid, a favorite image of the elites.
Google and YouTube, two of the most powerful (globalists owned) Internet companies on the planet are fully on board with the promotion of this trailer. A Google search brought up Gray State after typing in only ‘gray st’. After ten pages (11 listings each page) it didn’t slow down – the listings went on and on. What movie trailer in history has yielded such buzz? Remember, this is a trailer. No release date was announced then and none has been forthcoming, (This in itself is suspect. The trailer was made in 2011 and here we are in 2013. There is zero information online pertaining to a release date. It appears the trailer was made and that was it. One could almost call it a mini-movie production of and by itself.)
Most of the numerous links are to alternative news sites such as Prison Planet. Many of the site links are to dis-info shill sites known for being so. There is a great consistency to all the links – in every one there is a hyperlink to the trailer. It would appear the primary goal is to get people to watch the trailer. On YouTube, there are 492,260 views and numerous pages of ancillary interviews and analysis. These analysis focus on the feasibility of the concept of Gray State becoming a reality. In one interview with an actor in the trailer, he stated there was a lot of work to do in the “trailer.” He held up his fingers in the “Quote-Unquote” sign as he said “trailer.” That type of hand gesture is used to indicate (among other things) that what is being “quoted” is not the actuality of what is being inferred.
Research into the production company for Gray State, Hot Head Productions, from Minnesota, proved to be a dead end. There is a website for a Hot Head Productions in New York, but not the company sought. The only site discovered relating to the correct Hot Head Productions is here, but the phone number on the site is to a locksmith that has had the same number for seven years.
There is very little information on David Crowley, the director and writer. There are many sites with interviews of him about the trailer, what it means to society, etc. etc. But there is nothing on the man himself. In this age of LinkedIn, FB, Twitter and the like, one would think there would besomething on the guy, but there is nothing. His bio indicates he likes making movies, (but does not list any) and that he was in the army. That’s it.
A search to discover the source of the initial funding remains unknown, not for lack of trying. None of the interviews reveal this fact. One interview has Crowley claiming the trailer cost six thousand dollars to make. The trailer has tanks, helicopters, exploding buildings and uber-expensive military gear. It doesn’t take an MBA to know that, with all the explosions and heavy duty armaments, tanks etc. it cost a hell of a lot more than six grand to make. Where do these resources come from? In an interview with Crowley, he claimed the trailer generated $67,000.00 in investment money. He indicated this would be used to create a media package to help draw investors for the movie. Wait a minute! The trailer was allegedly created to bring in investors. Now that that has been done, and $67K has been brought in, that money will be used to…draw investors?
The company that supplied the weapons and heavy armaments is The Bullet Exchange, here. The owners of The Bullet Exchange are revealed to be David Crowley (Director and Writer, GS), Mitch Heil (Director of Photography, GS), and Danny Mason, (Lead Actor, GS). The company’s C.V. reveals that they worked on two other movies, Pandemic, here and Problem Solving the Republic,here. Both movies underlying meme is the government is staffed with malevolent people intent on bearing us ill will. Crowley’s bio on the site lists “Experience: 5 years Army infantry, squad leader, Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan”. Heil shows, “Experience: Five years in the 82nd Airborne, Deployed to Afghanistan for 12 months and Iraq for 14 months”.
The question to be posed is this: How do Crowley and Heil go from being gung ho soldiers to dissident filmmakers? How do they accomplish this feat of rebellion whilst drawing on their contacts accrued from years of military service? One would think, if Team Crowley is genuinely rebellion minded in their project, that the Army, if not discouraging the film, would certainly not endorse the project to the point they help supply the gear to make it a reality. This smacks of psy-op collusion.
Psy-ops are the children of one acronymed agency or another. To obtain tanks one needs permission of the Federists and, well, tanks. Tanks come from the government, and the government would not willingly loan out tanks to be employed in a movie depicting them in this harsh light unless someone, somewhere had not granted approval. If this movie was independent and truly anti-government as claimed then it makes sense they would not have the cooperation of the government for the trailer.
The underlying message the trailer imparts rolls across the screen to the sound of guns blazing, “With every weapon of the state turned against us, how long can we resist?” There is no hope offered in this trailer. There is no ‘resolution’ and no happy ending – nothing but fear and panic inducing images and sounds. It is really little more than another salvo, fired by the elites, to further diminish our feelings of security and well being. Rather than succumb to the fear, there are wise words to ponder as an antidote to soul poisoning fear. “Only focusing on what is wrong is a trap that just feeds the machine. We must really focus on creating what we want, even if doing so only makes it easier for future generations.”
The elites want us to focus on negativity. This mindset, aided via media projects like this ‘trailer’ succeed in germinating fear and negativity. Perhaps this trailer is not disingenuous at all, and is exactly what it purports itself to be. But in this age of deception where the globalist enemy controls every aspect of our existence, the chances of this being a genuine concept trailer are slim. Based on the results of this cursory investigation as outlined above, one might conclude Gray State just doesn’t add up. From a globalist point of view, why make a whole movie (costing many millions), when for a fraction of that cost, they can create the same amount of fear just by pushing a well-made trailer?
Michael T. Winter has been published on RT here and Global Research, here. He also has published a novel calledBranko’s Ride, purchase on Amazon HERE. Michael is based in southern Illinois, USA.
In our modern world there exist certain institutions of power. Not government committees, alphabet agencies, corporate lobbies, or even standard military organizations; no, these are the mere “middle-men” of power. The errand boys. The well paid hitmen of the global mafia. They are not the strategists or the decision makers.
Instead, I speak of institutions which introduce the newest paradigms. Who write the propaganda. Who issue the orders from on high. I speak of the hubs of elitism which have initiated nearly every policy mechanism of our government for the past several decades. I am talking about the Council On Foreign Relations, the Tavistock Institute, the Heritage Foundation (a socialist organization posing as conservative), the Bilderberg Group, as well as the corporate foils that they use to enact globalization, such as Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Carlyle Group, etc.
Many of these organizations and corporations operate a revolving door within the U.S. government. Monsanto has champions, like Donald Rumsfeld who was on the board of directors of its Searle Pharmaceuticals branch, who later went on to help the company force numerous dangerous products including Aspartame through the FDA. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have a veritable merry-go-round of corrupt banking agents which are appointed to important White House and Treasury positions on a regular basis REGARDLESS of which party happens to be in office. Most prominent politicians are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization which has openly admitted on multiple occasions that their goal is the destruction of U.S. sovereignty and the formation of a “one world government” or “supranational union” (their words, not mine).
However, one organization seems to rear its ugly head at the forefront of the most sweeping mass propaganda operations of our time, and has been linked to the creation of the most atrocious military methodologies, including the use of false flag events. I am of course referring to the Rand Corporation, a California based “think tank” whose influence reaches into nearly every sphere of our society, from politics, to war, to entertainment.
The Rand Corporation deals in what I would call “absolute gray”. The goal of the group from its very inception was to promote a social atmosphere of moral ambiguity in the name of personal and national priority. They did this first through the creation of “Rational Choice Theory”; a theory which prescribes that when making any choice, an individual (or government) must act as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at an action that maximizes personal advantage. Basically, the ends justify the means, and moral conscience is not a factor to be taken seriously if one wishes to be successful.
Hilariously, rational choice theory has been attacked in the past by pro-socialist (collectivist) critics as “extreme individualism”; a philosophy which gives us license to be as “self serving” as possible while feeling patriotic at the same time. In reality, the socialists should have been applauding Rand Corporation all along.
What Rand had done through its propaganda war against the American people was to infuse the exact culture of selfishness needed to push the U.S. towards the socialist ideal. At the onset of any communist or national socialist society (sorry socialists, but they do indeed come from the same collectivist mindset), the masses are first convinced to hand over ultimate power to the establishment in order to safeguard THEMSELVES, not others. That is to say, the common collectivist man chooses to hand over his freedoms and participate in totalitarianism not because he wants what is best for the world, but because he wants what is best for himself, and he believes servitude to the system will get him what he wants with as little private sacrifice as possible (you know, except for his soul…).
The psychologist Carl Jung notes in his observations of collectivism in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia that most citizens of those nations did not necessarily want the formation of a tyrannical oligarchy, but, they went along with it anyway because they feared for their own comfort and livelihoods. Many a German supported the Third Reich simply because they did not want to lose a cushy job, or a steady paycheck, or they liked that the “trains ran on time”. Socialism is by far the most selfish movement in history, despite the fact that they claim to do what they do “for the greater good of the greater number”.
Rand also used Rational Choice Theory as a means to remove questions of principle from the debate over social progress. Rational Choice propaganda commonly presents the target audience with a false conundrum. A perfect example would be the hardcore propaganda based television show ‘24’ starring Kiefer Sutherland, in which a government “anti-terrorism” agent is faced with a controlled choice scenario in nearly every episode. This choice almost always ends with the agent being forced to set aside his morals and conscience to torture, kill, and destroy without mercy, or, allow millions of innocents to die if he does not.
Of course, the real world does not work this way. Life is not a chess game. Avenues to resolution of any crisis are limited only by our imagination and intelligence, not to mention the immense number of choices that could be made to defuse a crisis before it develops. Yet, Rand would like you to believe that we (and those in government) are required to become monstrous in order to survive. That we should be willing to forgo conscience and justice now for the promise of peace and tranquility later.
This is the age old strategy of Centralization; to remove all choices within a system, by force or manipulation, until the masses think they have nothing left but the choices the elites give them. It is the bread and butter of elitist institutions like Rand Corporation, and is at the core of the push for globalization.
In my studies on the developing economic disaster (or economic recovery depending on who you talk to) I have come across a particular methodology many times which set off my analyst alarm (or spidey-sense, if you will). This latest methodology, called “Linchpin Theory”, revolves around the work of John Casti, a Ph.D. from USC, “complexity scientist” and “systems theorist”, a Futurist, and most notably, a former employee of Rand Corporation:
Casti introduces his idea of “Linchpin Theory” in his book “X-Events: The Collapse Of Everything”, and what I found most immediately striking about the idea of “Linchpin Events” was how they offered perfect scapegoat scenarios for catastrophes that are engineered by the establishment.
Linchpin Theory argues that overt social, political, and technological “complexity” is to blame for the most destructive events in modern human history, and it is indeed an enticing suggestion for those who are uneducated and unaware of the behind the scenes mechanics of world events. Casti would like you to believe that political and social tides are unguided and chaotic; that all is random, and disaster is a product of “chance” trigger events that occur at the height of a malfunctioning and over-complicated system.
What he fails to mention, and what he should well know being a member of Rand, is that global events do not evolve in a vacuum. There have always been those groups who see themselves as the “select”, and who aspire to mold the future to there personal vision of Utopia. It has been openly admitted in myriad official observations on historical events that such groups have had a direct hand in the advent of particular conflicts.
For instance, Casti would call the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria an “X-event”, or linchpin, leading to the outbreak of WWI, when historical fact recalls that particular crisis was carefully constructed with the specific mind to involve the U.S.
Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee’s investigation. The Committee stated:
“The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war…. They discussed this question… for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This was in 1909.”
So, long before the advent of Ferdinand’s assassination, plans were being set in motion by globalist interests to draw the U.S. into a large scale conflict in order to “alter the life, or thinking, of the entire culture”. When a group of people set out to direct thinking and opportunity towards a particular outcome, and the end result is a culmination of that outcome, it is obviously not coincidence, and it is definitely not providence. It can only be called subversive design.
In the economic arena, one might say that the collapse of Lehman Bros. was the “linchpin” that triggered the landslide in the derivatives market which is still going on to this day. However, the derivatives market bubble was a carefully constructed house of cards, deliberately created with the help of multiple agencies and institutions. The private Federal Reserve had to artificially lower interest rates and inject trillions upon trillions into the housing market, the international banks had to invest those trillions into mortgages that they KNEW were toxic and likely never to be repaid. The Federal Government had to allow those mortgages to then be chopped up into derivatives and resold on the open market. The ratings agencies had to examine those derivatives and obviously defunct mortgages and then stamp them AAA. The SEC had to ignore the massive fraud being done in broad daylight while sweeping thousands of formal complaints and whistle blowers under the rug.
This was not some “random” event caused by uncontrolled “complexity”. This was engineered complexity with a devious purpose. The creation of the derivatives collapse was done with foreknowledge, at least by some. Goldman Sachs was caught red handed betting against their OWN derivatives instruments! Meaning they knew exactly what was about to happen in the market they helped build! This is called Conspiracy…
One might attribute Casti’s idea to a sincere belief in chaos, and a lack of insight into the nature of globalism as a brand of religion. However, in his first and as far as I can tell only interview with Coast To Coast Radio, Casti promotes catastrophic “X-Events” as a “good thing” for humanity, right in line with the Rand Corporation ideology. Casti, being a futurist and elitist, sees the ideas of the past as obsolete when confronted with the technological advancements of the modern world, and so, describes X-event moments as a kind of evolutionary “kickstart”, knocking us out of our old and barbaric philosophies of living and forcing us, through trial by fire, to adapt to a more streamlined culture. The linchpin event is, to summarize Casti’s position, a culture’s way of “punishing itself” for settling too comfortably into its own heritage and traditions. In other words, WE will supposedly be to blame for the next great apocalypse, not the elites…
I might suggest that Casti’s attitude seems to be one of general indifference to human suffering in the wake of his “X-Events”, and that he would not necessarily be opposed to the deaths of millions if it caused the “advancement” of humanity towards a particular ideology. His concept of “advancement” and ours are likely very different, though. I suspect that he is well aware that X-Events are actually tools at the disposal of elitists to generate the “evolution” he so desires, and that evolution includes a collectivist result.
With almost every major economy on the globe on the verge of collapse and most now desperately inflating, taxing, or outright stealing in order to hide their situation, with multiple tinderbox environments being facilitated in the Pacific with China, North Korea, and Japan, and in the Middle East and Africa with Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, etc., there is no doubt that we are living in a linchpin-rich era. It is inevitable that one or more of these explosive tension points will erupt and cause a chain reaction around the planet. The linchpin and the chain reaction will become the focus of our epoch, rather than the men who made them possible in the first place.
Strangely, Casti’s theory was even recently featured in an episode of the ABC mystery/drama show “Castle”, called “Linchpin” (what else?), in which a writer turned detective uncovers a plot by a “shadow group” to use the research of the innocent Dr. Nelson Blakely (apparently based on Casti) to initiate a collapse of the U.S. economy by assassinating the ten-year-old daughter of a prominent Chinese businessman, triggering a dump of U.S. Treasuries by China and fomenting WWIII:
Now, I think anyone with any sense can see where this is going. Casti and Rand Corporation are giving us a glimpse into the future of propaganda. This is what will be written in our children’s history books in the globalists have their way. The fact that Linchpin Theory is featured in a primetime television show at all is a testament to Rand Corporation’s influence in the media. But, as for the wider picture, are the trigger points around us really just a product of complex coincidence?
Not a chance.
Each major global hot-spot today can easily be linked back to the designs of international corporate and banking interests and the puppet governments they use as messengers. Casti claims that “X-events” and “linchpins” cannot be accurately predicted, but it would seem that they can certainly be purposely created.
The globalists have stretched the whole of the world thin. They have removed almost every pillar of support from the edifice around us, and like a giant game of Jenga, are waiting for the final piece to be removed, causing the teetering structure to crumble. Once this calamity occurs, they will call it a random act of fate, or a mathematical inevitability of an overly complex system. They will say that they are not to blame. That we were in the midst of “recovery”. That they could not have seen it coming.
Their solution will be predictable. They will state that in order to avoid such future destruction, the global framework must be “simplified”, and what better way to simplify the world than to end national sovereignty, dissolve all borders, and centralize nation states under a single economic and political ideal?
Is it the Hegelian Dialectic all over again? Yes. Is it old hat feudalism and distraction? Yes. But, I have to hand it to Casti and Rand Corporation; they certainly have refined the argument for collectivism, centralization, technocracy, slavery, moral relativism, and false-flag dupery down to a near science…
You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.
To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page.
But just as grabbing guns won’t reduce the bulk of gun violence in America, the vague mental-health dictum won’t work, either.
This article focuses on psychology, which is a branch of false knowledge different from the false knowledge of psychiatry.
A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has received special training in diagnosing and prescribing drugs for “mental disorders,” none of which disorders can be confirmed to exist by any test.
A psychologist doesn’t need to be a medical doctor. With an advanced degree and a license, he can do therapy with patients and try to resolve “mental and emotional issues,” for which no diagnostic tests exist.
From the beginning of the history of psychology, it was really a simple trick. Establish a loose category called “mental problem,” pour money and research into solving it, and enroll patients.
This approach has become so pervasive that most people can’t conceive of an alternative. A person is acting strange, he has a problem, and a mental-health practitioner can help him solve it. What else do we need to know?
Well, for starters, we need to know why the category of “mental problem” is necessary. Why should we assume it means anything?
Instead, for example: what about people making an inventory of their own deeply held convictions, followed by a self-assessment, to see how well or badly they’re living up to those convictions?
Why did that approach go out the window?
Because it’s based on some sense of responsibility, which is now verboten in a society where “intervening” and “fulfilling needs” are paramount.
If a person can’t or won’t discover what his most deeply held convictions are, what hope does he have? What problems can he solve that are going to make any great difference?
“Let’s see. I’m living a life I don’t want, and that life is throwing problems at me. If I solve the problems, I’ll be okay, right?”
Are you kidding?
Academic psychology, if you read its history, its textbooks, its methods, has nothing of value or substance to say about a person’s most profound personal convictions. That’s not on the radar. It never was. What you get is sophisticated babble about mental conditions and unresolved issues.
The existence of these issues and conditions is PROMOTED by psychology. Psychology is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you assume these conditions actually exist and if you believe they are real, then you can chew on them for ten or 15 years and come up with explanations, answers, and solutions.
Yes, that’s right. The human being is a very adaptable creature. If you can insert a primary assumption into his mind, where he accepts it as authentic, he’ll begin to cogitate and calculate around it.
Because the assumption was never his to begin with. He bought it. He went for it. He took the bait.
Now if you consider that millions and millions of people are working on this fake reality, having accepted that they suffer from mental problems, what do you get?
You get a society that, more and more, is paralyzed into inaction. You get passivity. You get an overall depletion of energy and power. You get a victim-club mentality.
Freud picked the “Oedipal Complex” out of a hat. The incest fantasy. He made this the foundation of his breakthrough. He sold it. He sold it as the underlying trauma and taboo that was always and forever twisting the minds of every male on Earth. He decided that this fantasy had to be exorcised with years of specialized therapy.
It was a new version of old guilt. Forget about the Garden of Eden and eating forbidden fruit from the tree. The incest wish was the real source of human guilt.
Psychology, from Freud forward, quickly became a prison term from which the inhabitant could be released when the therapist determined basic problems had been defeated.
Freud’s opponents and detractors argued for their own version of the correct prison (the basic mental problem).But the whole underlying notion of “a person captured” needed to come under scrutiny, and of course that never happened, as long as psychologists and psychiatrists ruled the roost.
Psychology became a major force that undermined freedom, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution in America. It asserted or implied that no rights or responsibilities meant anything as long as people were chained to their own problems and issues. This was an argument from Inherent Limitation. It was persuasive.
From the perspective of psychology, only rubes and Neanderthals would claim freedom was a core fact of existence. The more educated classes would realize they had to swim through an undersea jungle of their own mental and emotional restraints, guided by a steady professional hand, before they could finally emerge and come to experience the meaning of freedom.
So of course that journey became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There was one catch. Most people, after years of therapy, felt no dramatic difference. This disappointment translated into a deep cynicism about life. It meant more passivity.
Psychology has not only promoted the existence of mental problems, it has stated that these conditions are rock-bottom facts: there is no way to overcome them, short of talk therapy or psychiatric drugs. Psychology argues that it is useless to try to “ignore mental conditions.” That won’t work. It can’t work.
And if the patient agrees, he can go on to manufacture problems without end.
Whereas, the truth is, every so-called mental or emotional condition is a signal. It alerts a person that he is heading the ship away from its destination. He’s experiencing a crisis that has everything to do with the question: WHAT IS MY COURSE IN LIFE?
Finding an answer to that question makes all the difference.
I know somebody is going to write me about how nutrition can solve mental problems. Somebody is going to write and tell me how vaccines, medical drugs, chemtrails, GMOs, dyes and colors in food, etc., create mental problems.
I’ve written about these factors for years. Understand, however, that, in these cases, what the person is really suffering from is a severe nutritional deficit, or from the toxic overload of the vaccines, drugs, GMOs. To say it’s a mental problem is to misname what is really going on. In the same way, saying a person has an irresistible itch when what he really has is poison ivy is a diversion from the main event.
Psychology says: “Here is the mind. It contains conditions and issues. We can resolve them.”
That’s false. That’s the illusion. The mind doesn’t CONTAIN CONDITIONS or issues.
The conditions-hoax is perfectly paralleled by the disorder-hoax of psychiatry. These are, at the very best, metaphors. At their worst, they’re intentional ruses.
Here are ACTUAL rock-bottom conditions: freedom, independence, deep and profound desire, the power and energy to fulfill those desires, a sense of what is right and wrong, the wish to see others succeed brilliantly, community, expressing self, creative power, action in the world.
These are the elements of a philosophy, not psychology. These are elements of life abundant.
These are loci of decision for every conscious person.
And, as it turns out, psychology came late to the party. For millennia, humans have been engaging in philosophy and the exploration of spiritual dimensions.
The assumption of “gross limitation caused by internal problems” is a very recent concoction.
The assumption is simply the result of propaganda bought and sold.
When we delete such nonsense, we can discover the kind of personal truth that rings the bell clearly, if we are up to the task.
The rise of psychology was in part fueled by the notion that science could resolve human problems. But humans aren’t machines; they aren’t closed systems; they aren’t planets moving in fixed orbits. The analogy doesn’t work. It fails miserably.
Exploring instead, for example, what the ancient alchemists were really up to, and the original teachers of Tibet who employed the techniques of itinerant adepts from India, gives us a startling perspective on the UNLIMITED human being.
These teachers weren’t, in any meaningful sense, psychologists. They were philosophers of action. They were adventurers and explorers. They didn’t sit in offices dealing with the latest symptoms of people suffering from the malaise of a brainwashed society.
They knew there was a Matrix; they knew it was a heavy blanket of illusion; they knew it both corralled the individual and the community; and they knew it could be dispelled. It was their mission to make that happen, and they didn’t stint.
Theirs was a heraldic enterprise. It surpassed, by light years, stirring sand in a childish playpen of therapy.
That heraldic thread of adventure never dies. It can be stifled at times, but it remains alive under the surface.
Liberating the creative force in a person is the key. Not through some external and removed and remote process. The process involves everything you’ve got.
It goes down to the center of the Earth and out to the stars, and beyond. When so engaged, the mind cooperates and collaborates with the adventurer. It moves through so-called mental problems like a rocket burning up old paper.
One summer in the 1980s, when I was just starting out as a reporter, I scored a few front-page stories for LA Weekly, because other writers were out of town. I managed to squeeze in one of the weirder features the Weekly had published up to that time: off-the-record interviews with therapists detailing their private fantasies—all of which turned out to be intensely anti-social.
I later learned the “therapy community in town” didn’t appreciate my approach.
Similarly, I expect some psychologists will rankle at this one. But the point is, all these fantasies, of both patient and therapist are outcomes of the creative force in action—nothing less or more—and they should be seen that way.
Instead of assigning fantasy A to mental condition A and fantasy B to condition B, why not just throw all the insanity overboard and acknowledge, finally, that what underlies fantasia is the beginning and end of the answer to what’s bothering people and troubling them and driving them into despair and deep boredom:
Imagination and the creative force are tigers waiting to be let out of their cages so they can invent astonishing Futures.
This would be a truly modern psychology and a thoroughly contemporary reflection of what we all know.
From our deepest wellsprings, we:
INVENT;
IMAGINE;
CREATE;
IMPROVISE;
BUILD;
WORK TO MAKE WHAT WE IMAGINE INTO FACT IN THE WORLD.
Exploring the meaning and action of THIS is a worthy undertaking, and it would happily supersede what has absurdly been called psychology.
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
The French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines (MSNA) announced today that it has decided to suspend the sale of Diane 35, a drug generally used to combat acne, but that is also sold as a contraceptive. The decision was made after four women who used the pharmaceutical product died mysteriously.
The action against the generic product will take effect within three months, and health authorities advised women who use the drug to consult with their physicians regarding any treatment options that involve the use of Diane 35.
MSNA director, Dominique Maraninchi, said today at a press conference that specialists should stop prescribing the drug, and pharmacists should continue providing it in the right doses to avoid sudden breaks in treatment.
The MSNA explained Monday that the death of four women on a date that was not specified by the entity, was caused by a venous thrombosis linked to the consumption of Diane 35, a drug that is approved in 135 countries and marketed in 116 of them.
Diane 35, whose marketing in France dates back to 1987, is indicated for acne, but its ability to inhibit ovulation has made it a recommendation for contraception.
“It’s not a pill and it should not be prescribed as such,” Maraninchi said today, emphasizing that the review that his agency has completed about the product did not found sufficient data to ensure its effectiveness for this purpose.
The representative of the agency said that it is unclear among experts what kinds of acne can be treated with this drug and that they have concluded that taking Diane 35 quadruples the risk of thromboembolic disease.
Although the MSNA asserted that the risk of thromboembolic disease is related to other factors in addition to the use of the drug, the statement said that given the current scenario, the organization opted to withdraw approval for the sale of the product and to issue an alert to the rest of its European counterparts on the decision.
The decision to ban the sale of Diane 35 comes after the French government decided this month to encourage physicians to prescribe second-generation pills instead of third and fourth generation ones, in order to minimize the risk thrombosis.
In this particular case, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), responsible for the scientific evaluation of medicines sold in Europe, said there was no reason for any woman to stop taking combined birth control pills considering that no new evidence existed that those may pose health risks.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute.
Some families are getting assistance from FEMA and going to hotels, which they must leave every two weeks, go and apply for more vouchers and then check back in to the hotel.
Others are sleeping in tents.
Still others have remained in storm damaged homes without electricity, water or heat.
Sandy hit the area on October 29. It has been 3 full months and President Obama just got around to signing the aid bill today.
Could it be any more clear that you are on your own after a disaster? If you are not prepared, you, too, will be at the mercy of FEMA, waiting months for the President to get around to authorizing aid, huddled in a tent through the frigid months of winter.
Think about being without utilities for three entire months.
You don’t have heat unless you have a fireplace or wood stove.
You can’t flush the toilet
You can’t take a shower.
You can’t turn on your tap to wash dishes.
You can’t put a kettle on the stove for tea.
You don’t have internet or television.
You don’t have refrigeration.
You can’t cook a warm dinner for your children.
How would you cope with this? Think seriously about 94 days in this situation. Would you be prepared?
If you are a prepper, this is the type of thing you prepare for. If you aren’t a prepper, does this situation inspire you to get started?
Think about what you’d need to survive 3 months without utilities. In this particular situation, people are able to go out and purchase things, so as bad as it is, it could be worse.
In a completely down-grid situation you need:
An alternative heat source that does not depend on natural gas or electricity
Little Buddy propane heater
Wood stove or fireplace place
Kerosene or oil heater
Fuel for your heat source
Propane
Wood
Coal
Heating oil
Non-fuel warmth items
Sleeping bags
Tents (a great way to share body heat is to set up a tent in the warmest room in the house for the family to sleep in)
Coats, hats, scarves and gloves
Heating pads that can be warmed up near your heat source (like rice bags)
Water (these figures will vary based on the season)
Drinking water – figure on 1 gallon per person per day
Water for pets – depending on the size of the pet, 2 liters -1 gallon per day
Water for cleaning – washing dishes, brushing your teeth, washing your hands, personal hygiene, keeping counters clean, etc.
Gravity-fed water filtration system with extra filters
A way to cook, or at least heat, food
Wood stove
Camp stove
Outdoor Barbecue
Kelly Kettle
Rocket stove
Fondue pot
Fuel for your cooking method
wood
propane
gel fuel
Food, particularly items that require little or no cooking
Crackers
Peanut butter
Canned soups, stews and chili
Canned pasta
Canned fruits and vegetables
MREs (not healthy for daily use)
Dry milk
Cereal
Granola bars
Trail mix
Fruit that stores well, like apples and oranges
Pretzels
Nuts
Coolers (can be packed with snow in the winter – in some situations you might be able to purchase ice)
Cleaning supplies that don’t require water
Lysol wipes
Disinfecting spray
White vinegar
Ways to keep clean
Dry shampoo
Baby wipes
Hand sanitizer
Strong mouthwash like Listerine
Kitty litter, buckets and heavy-duty garbage bag for personal sanitation use
Convenience items (these items will reduce your need for water)
Paper plates
Paper napkins
Paper towels
Disposable flatware
Disposable cups and bowls
Garbage bags in all sizes
Lighting
Candles
Battery operated LED lights
Lanterns
Kerosene or oil lamps
Solar garden lights (charge them outside during the day, then use vases to hold them indoors at night)
Entertainment – most people depend on the grid for the majority of their entertainment – here are some ideas to entertain yourself and the kids without power
Books (the real ones made from paper – my favorite!)
Drawing pads and pencils
Art and craft supplies
Yarn and needles
Puzzles
Books with crosswords, wordsearch, sudoku, etc.
Playing cards
Board games
This list isn’t meant to cover everything a person would need for 94 days without power. If you aren’t yet prepared, this offers some suggestions for you. Everyone’s situation is different. You may have resources in your environment that will help you make it through an emergency that will rule out some of the preparations here. The biggest step is to realize what your needs will be and figure out how you would meet them if a disaster like this struck your home tomorrow.
The important thing is to realize that this can happen – right here in North America. It’s happening right now. As you sit there on your computer reading this, nearly 2000 families on this continent are trying to stay warm, clean, fed and healthy without electricity or running water.
It’s not just something that occurs in places like Haiti or Thailand. Our grid is so susceptible that it can be taken out by an ice storm, a summer thunderstorm or a confluence of events like Superstorm Sandy. Spend some time thinking about how you and your family would fare and then think about ways you can improve your odds.
Have you lived through an extended power outage? What challenges did you face and how did you meet them? Share in the comments!
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca
While public officials may be ignoring the continued deterioration of our economy, job losses to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people weekly, and the unprecedented demand for government emergency support services like unemployment insurance and food assistance, Americans who sense uncertainty in the air are flocking to the safety of physical resources.
Our first point of interest is a recent report from the Federal Reserve that indicates some $114 billion dollars in cash was withdrawn from the nation’s largest banks in the last thirty days. Those holding their money at bailed out financial institutions are understandably concerned because the government’s $250,000 deposit insurance guarantee program, originally implemented to restore confidence in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, expired at the end of 2012. That and the US fiscal situation has never been worse, with one Obama official recently having said the solution to the country’s woes is to simply kill the dollar.
This suggests investors and cash savers are no longer confident in the purported safety of the country’s “too-big-to-fail” institutions.
The next obvious question then is, “where did this money go?”
According to the mint, investors purchased nearly half a billion dollars in gold and silver in the last 30 days. There was, in fact, so much money shifting into physical precious metals in January that the mint was actually forced to cease operations because they couldn’t meet demand.
A massive 7.4 million Silver Eagles were purchased from the U.S. Mint in January, considerably higher than the previous record from early 2011.
At 140,000 ounces, the Mint has also sold the most ounces of gold in January in almost three years, suggesting the rising ‘currency wars’ are stoking people’s ongoing rotation from paper-to-physical assets as their ‘wealth’ slowing loses its value.
With a Silver Eagle trading at around $31 per ounce and the gold spot price at near all time highs of $1650, the US Mint saw some $460 million dollars shift into precious metals in the month of January alone.
What’s equally as interesting, and perhaps a harbinger of the coming chaos, is that the People’s Republic of China is also shifting a large amount of its cash reserves into physical resource based investments that include agriculture, energy, and precious metals, a move that has caused confusion among experts at the United Nations.
With the political situation in this country rapidly dwindling because of government interference on all levels, a recession for 2013 already baked into the cake, and a global economy on the brink of collapse, there is one primary motivating factor driving money into gold and silver.
Uncertainty.
As we’ve seen recently with shortages in emergency food rations and supplies, firearms and magazines, and now gold and silver, Americans are no longer confident in the stability of the system as a whole, and they are diversifying their assets into physical resources that will retain value should the global financial, economic, monetary, and geo-political systems come unhinged.
When it hits the fan, don’t say we didn’t warn you. Mac Slavo is the editor of SHTFplan.com, a resource hub for alternative news, contrarian commentary and strategies that you can take to protect yourself from the coming global paradigm shift.
The Bilderberg Group has now been directly implicated for the murder of Italian activists during the seventies and eighties.
According to Ferdinando Imposimato, a former prosecutor that investigated the Italian Mafia who is also an honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court, during a speech he delivered at a book launch revealed for the first time that the Bilderberg Group were responsible for massacres of political activists during the seventies and eighties in Italy.
Ferdinando Imposimato not only implicates the Bilderberg Group, he also reveals that the CIA and Bilderberg Group were working in partnership to destabilize the Italian political framework during the seventies and eighties.
While discussing how the Bilderberg Group and CIA tried to infiltrate Italy, Mr. Imposimato was quoted as saying:
The strategy (used by the CIA) was used to shift the political balance from right to center-left and then to left. This was orchestrated by the CIA.
Unknown to many, the Bilderberg Group has a long history of manipulating political frameworks around the world.
Within the last 12 months, prominent members of the Bilderberg Group have been appointed to the upper echelons of the United States and United Kingdom governments.
Interestingly, Italy has been represented at many Bilderberg Group meetings. In fact, at the last three Bilderberg Group meetings, 17 participants were Italian. On average, Italians make up 5% of the participants list at all Bilderberg Group meetings.
The following is a list of Italian Bilderberg Group participants:
Franco Bernabe, John Elkann, Mario Monti, Tommaso Padoa Schioppa, Paolo Scaroni, Giulio Tremonti, Gianni Agnelli, Umberto Agnelli, Alfredo Ambrosetti, Emma Bonino, Giampiero Cantoni, Lucio Caracciolo, Louis G. Cavalchini, Adriana Ceretelli, Innocent Cipolletta, Gian C. Citizens Cesi, Rodolfo De Benedetti, Ferruccio De Bortoli, Paolo Zannoni, Antonio Vittorino, Ignazio Visco, Walter Veltroni, Marco Tronchetti Provera, Ugo Stille, Barbara Spinelli, Domenico Siniscalco, Stefano Silvestri, Renato Ruggiero, Carlo Rossella, Virginio Rognoni, Sergio Romano Gianni Riotta, Alessandro Profumo, Romano Prodi, Corrado Passera, Cesare Merlini, S. Rainer Masera, Claudio Martelli, Giorgio La Malfa, Francesco Giavazzi, Gabriele Galateri, Paolo Fresco, John Elkann, Mario Draghi, Gianni De Michelis.
To learn more about the Bilderberg Group, click here.
Andrew Puhanic is the founder of the Globalist Report. The aim of the Globalist Report is to provide current, relevant and informative information about the Globalists and Globalist Agenda. You can contact Andrew directly by visiting the Globalist Report
This is not a prediction of future prices of gold and silver; it is an indication of what could happen in a speculative bubble environment based on the history of previous bubbles.
I’ll summarize a simple analysis of past bubbles.
Definitions
Bubble: A speculative mania in a market that is priced well beyond what the fundamentals and intrinsic value indicate.
Phase 1: The first phase of the bubble begins with the price bottoming and initiating a long rally. It is often indicated by a triggering event such as Nixon closing the “gold window” on August 15, 1971 – the beginning of the gold and silver bubbles that terminated in 1980. The market rallies for some years, hits a new “all-time” high, and then corrects.
When the market proceeds into a bubble phase, it rallies beyond that new high and continues much higher. The end of phase 1 and the beginning of phase 2 are the point at which the market rallies from its correction low and exceeds its previous high. See the graph of the silver market with the indicated beginning and end points for phase 1 and phase 2.
Phase 2: The final phase of the bubble starts when the price exceeds the “new high” and then rallies to a much higher and unsustainable level.
Click on image to enlarge.
I looked at the time and price data for the South Sea Bubble in England from 1719 -1720, the silver bubble from August 1971 to January 1980, the NASDAQ bubble from August 1982 to March 2000, the Japanese Real Estate bubble from 1965 to 1991, the gold bubble from August 1971 to January 1980, and the S&P mini-bubble from August 1982 to March of 2000. A spreadsheet will not display well, so I’ll list my results. Please realize that all prices and dates are approximate – this is “big picture” analysis.
The conclusion is that bubbles start slowly and then accelerate to unsustainable highs (on large volume) that are largely created by greed and fear but not fundamental evaluations. Bubbles generally follow the “Pareto Principle” where approximately 80% of the price move occurs in the LAST 20% of the time. Consider:
South Sea Bubble: (Extreme price bubble)
Phase 1: January 1719 to March 1720. Price from $120 to $180.
Phase 2: March 1720 to July 1720. Price from $180 to $900.
Bubbles tend to follow the 80/20 ratio indicated in the Pareto Principle. Phase 1 takes approximately 70-80% of the time and covers approximately 10-20% of the total price change. Phase 2 accelerates so that it takes only 20-30% of the time but covers 80-90% of the price change.Extreme bubbles such as the South Sea Bubble and the Silver bubble experience approximately 90% of the price change in the 2nd phase. The ratio of the phase 2 ending price to beginning price is typically 4 to 8 – a huge price move. Such bubbles are rare; the subsequent crash is usually devastating.
Future Bubbles
In the opinion of many analysts, sovereign debt is an ongoing bubble that could burst with world-wide consequences. Should deficit spending and bond monetization (Quantitative Easing) accelerate in the next several years, as seems likely, that sovereign debt bubble will inflate further. Because of the massive printing of dollars, the value of the dollar must fall, particularly against commodities such as oil, gold, and silver. As the purchasing power of the dollar falls, an increasing number of people will realize their dollars are losing value, and those people will seek safety for their savings and retirement. Gold and silver will benefit from an increasingly desperate search for safety as a result of the decline of the dollar. Assuming the 80/20 “rule” and the phase 2 price change ratio of approximately 5, what could happen if gold and silver rise into another speculative bubble?
Assume that silver began its uptrend in November 2001 at $4.01 and that gold began its move in April 2001 at $255. Silver rallied to nearly $50 in 2011, and gold also rallied to a new high of about $1,900 in 2011. Assume that both surpass those highs about mid-2013 and accelerate into phase 2 thereafter. Using these assumptions, phase 1 for silver would measure 12.5 years and phase 2 could last until approximately late 2016 – early 2017. If we assume that phase 1 was a move from $4 to $50 and that represents 19% of the total move, the high could be around $250.The ratio of phase 2 ending price to beginning price would be 5:1 – reasonable.
Indications for gold suggest a similar end date and a phase 2 bubble price of perhaps $9,000 per ounce. The ratio of phase 2 ending price to beginning price would be 4.7:1 at $9,000.
The gold to silver ratio at these bubble prices would be approximately 36, much higher than the ratio from 1980. Perhaps silver would “blow-off” higher, like it did in 1980, and force the gold to silver ratio lower or perhaps gold might not rally so high. Time will tell.
Outrageous?
Well, yes, at first glance, those prices do seem outrageous. But consider for perspective:
Apple stock rose from about $4 in 1997 to over $700 in 2012.
Silver rose from $1.50 to $50.00 in less than 10 years.
Gold rose from about $40 to over $850 in less than 10 years.
Crude oil rose from less than $11 in 1998 to almost $150 in 2008.
The official US national debt is larger than $16,000,000,000,000. The unfunded liabilities, depending on who is counting, are approximately $100,000,000,000,000 to $230,000,000,000,000. Divide $200 Trillion by approximately 300,000,000 people and the unfunded debt per capita of the United States is approximately $700,000. That is outrageous!
The official national debt increases in excess of $3,000,000,000 per day, each and every day. The unfunded liabilities increase by perhaps five – ten times that amount. Outrageous!
We still pretend the national debt is not a problem and that it will be “rolled over” forever. That is outrageous.
Argentina has revalued their currency several times in the last 30 years – they have dropped 8 zeros off their currency since 1980. Savings accounts and the middle class were devastated several times. It can happen again.
Given the above for perspective, is gold at $5,000 to $10,000 per ounce unreasonable or impossible? Is silver at $200 to $400 per ounce unreasonable or impossible? Past bubbles have had an ending price 4 – 8 times higher than the phase 2 beginning price, so history has shown that such prices for gold and silver are indeed possible. Possible is not the same as certain – but these bubble price indications are certainly worth your consideration.
Would you prefer your savings in gold, silver, or a savings account? Read Ten Steps to Safety.
About Deviant Investor: I am a retired accountant who has 30 years of experience following markets, investing, and trading both futures and stocks. I have made and lost money during my investing career, and those successes and losses have taught me much about markets, timing, risk, inflation, and crashes. I currently invest for the long term, and I swing trade (in a trade from one to four weeks) stocks and ETFs. I offer opinions and commentary, but not investment advice.
Years ago I did graduate work in physics (all but dissertation), so I strongly believe in data, analysis, objective facts, and rational decisions based on hard data. I currently live in Texas.
In analyzing network coverage of the Sandy Hook murders, I had no intention of doing a series of articles on television news, but the opportunity to deconstruct the overall grand illusion was compelling.
A number of articles later, I want to discuss yet another sleight-of-hand trick. The myth of “coverage.”
It’s familiar to every viewer. Scott Pelley, in seamless fashion, might say, “Our top story tonight, the widening conflict in Syria. For the latest on the Assad government crackdown, our coverage begins with Clarissa Ward in Damascus…” .
Clarissa Ward has entered the country secretly, posing as a tourist. She carries a small camera. In interviews with rebels, she discovers that a) there is a conflict, b) people are being arrested c) there is a funeral for a person who was killed by government soldiers, d) defiance among the citizenry is growing.
In other words, she tells us almost nothing.
But CBS is imparting the impression that her report is important. After all, it’s not just anchor Scott Pelley in the studio. It’s a journalist in the field, up close and personal. It’s coverage.
Here are a few of the many things we don’t learn from either Pelley or Ward. Who is behind the rebellion in Syria? What is their real goal? What covert role is the US playing? Why are there al Qaeda personnel there?
But who cares? We have coverage. A key hole view. It’s wonderful. It’s exciting for two minutes. If we’re already brainwashed.
Coverage in television means you have the money, crew, resources, and stand-up reporters you can send out into the field. That’s all it means. It has nothing to do with information.
CNN made its reputation by coverage, from one end of the planet to the other. Yet, what did we really learn in all those years? We learned that, by straining to the point of hernia, a cable network could present news non-stop, 24/7.
The trick of coverage is the smooth transition from anchor in the studio to reporter in the field. The reporter is standing in front of something that vaguely resembles or represents what we imagine the locale contains. A large squat government building, a tower, a marketplace, a river, a skyline.
At some point during the meaningless report, the screen splits and we see both the anchor and the reporter. This yields the impression of two concerned professionals discussing something significant.
Then we’re back to the reporter in the field filling up the whole screen.
The anchor closes with a question or two.
“Denise, have you seen any tanks in the area?”
“No Wolf, not in the last hour. But we have reports from last night of shelling in the village.”
Well, isn’t this marvelous. Wolf is in Atlanta and Denise is in Patagonia. And they’re talking to each other in real time. Therefore, they must be on top of what’s going on.
“Denise, we understand medical help arrived a short time ago.”
“Yes, Wolf. Out in the desert, in tents, surgeons are performing emergency operations on the wounded.”
Well, what else is there to know? They’ve covered it.
In a twist on this performance, Denise might say, “Government officials are cautiously optimistic about repelling the invading force.” We cut to an interview conducted by Denise, in a hotel room, a few hours earlier.
She’s sitting across from a man in a suit. He’s the minister of information for the ruling party.
Denise: Is it true, Dr. Oobladee, that rebels groups in the suburbs have taken over several branch offices of the central bank?
Dr. Oob: We don’t believe that’s accurate. Our soldiers have been providing security for families in the area.
Denise: And their fortifications are secure?
Dr. Oob: They’ve trained for this mission, yes.
Cut back to Denise standing where she was standing before.
“Wolf, as the night wears on, we hear sporadic gunfire from the civic center. It’s a repeat of the last three evenings. The rebels are determined to make a stand and not give up further ground, in this war that enters its sixth month…”
Cut back to the studio in Atlanta.
“Thank you, Denise. We’ll take a break and be back in a minute to discuss the upcoming controversial film, Cold War in a Hat, starring George Clooney.”
We went from Atlanta to a street corner in the capital of Patagonia and then to a hotel room in the city, and then back to the street corner, then to Atlanta, off to a commercial, and then back to the studio for teasers on a new film. The technology and the technique are indeed impressive. The knowledge imparted is hovering at absolute zero, but it doesn’t matter. They have coverage.
It’s on the order of a magician sawing a woman in a box in half, after which the box is opened and found to be empty.
Coverage can also be simultaneous. In the middle of the screen is the anchor, head and shoulders, talking about the latest shooting. In the upper left-hand corner is a little static scene of three police cars with flashing lights sitting near a strand of yellow tape across a front yard. At the bottom of the screen is a moving line of text recapping headlines of the hour. Coverage. Look at all that. They must know what they’re doing.
Then we have the bonanza of coverage, a story that deals cards to several reporters in the field at different locations. As always, the anchor retains control. He may have two or three reporters on screen at the same time after they individually file their thirty-second pieces.
There is a bit of crosstalk. The anchor mediates. The shipment of frozen food was tainted. Therefore, we have a reporter standing in front of FDA headquarters in Maryland, another reporter in front of the manufacturer’s home office in Indiana, and a third reporter outside a hospital emergency room in San Francisco, where a child is having his stomach pumped. There is also a three-second clip of a lab in which workers in white coats and masks are moving around, and a clip of a moving assembly line which presumably has something to do with the production of the tainted product.
The whole story, as the network tells it, could be compressed down to 20 seconds, total. But they want coverage.
On election night, a network could simply show three or four newsmen sitting around in shirtsleeves smoking cigars and talking about the Jets for a few hours, after which one of them says, “Obama just won.”
But instead, we get the circus. A half-dozen stand-ups from various campaign headquarters, a numbers guru with a high-tech map as big as a movie screen pulling up counties in the studio, an anchor “bringing it all together,” and pundits weighing in with sage estimates. Team coverage. The “best in the business.”
I love hearing Wolf Blitzer utter that line. It makes me think of a guy selling expired cheese. But after all, he has a right to promote his people. He’s not just in a studio, he’s in The Situation Room. Where there is coverage.
The height of absurdity is achieved during a violent storm. A reporter has to be standing out in the rain and vicious wind, water seeping into his shoes, holding an umbrella in one hand and a mic in the other, looking for all the world like the umbrella is going to take him up into the sky.
The storm could be shot from inside a store at ground level, and the reporter could be sitting in a chair next to the cash register peering out through the window, but that wouldn’t really be coverage.
If you were to compare the anchor/reporter-in-the-field relationship of 40 years ago to today, you’d see a stark difference. In days of yore, it was exceedingly clunky and clumsy. It was one anchor and one reporter, but at least the man in the field was expected to have something to say. Now it’s all flash and intercutting. Now it’s the technique. The facile blending. The rapid interchange of image. It’s nothing made into something.
Segueways and blends are far more important than content. The newspeople are there merely to illustrate smoothness and transition. Brian Williams (NBC) is the champion operator for this mode. He is the doctor who can impart to you a diagnosis of a disease that doesn’t exist, but you don’t care. He’s a fine waiter in an expensive restaurant who will deliver three small items in the center of a very large plate and make you feel honored. He’s a golfer with such a fine swing you don’t care how many strokes he takes to get to the green. When he shifts to his man or woman in the field, you feel he’s conferring knighthood. Brian knows coverage.
There is a phenomenon that ought to be called minus-coverage coverage. Sandy Hook gave us wall-to-wall everything without exposing a single fact behind a fact. We saw nothing but Sandy Hook for two days on end, with stand-ups from every hand on deck, and yet we learned almost zero after the first few hours.
In the second Gulf War, we were bombarded with studio and field reports, but we saw no engagement or conflict that exposed both sides in simultaneous action against each other. Embedded reporters had to pledge the life of their first-born they wouldn’t break a rule laid down for journalists by the Army command.
Modern network coverage does one important thing. It establishes a standard by which other news is measured. For most viewers, if the news can’t display full technique, full smoothness, full effortless transition, it must be lacking in some important, though undefined, way.
Coverage is almost synonymous with transition. How the news moves from anchor to reporter(s) and back is Value. This is highly significant because it mirrors what a good hypnotist is able to do. If he’s a real pro, he doesn’t just put someone in a trance and talk to him, he puts him under and then moves from one topic to another—without breaking the trance. This is a skill.
In fact, the hypnotist’s transitions are a vital aspect of the process itself. The patient feels the guidance as the scene changes before his eyes. The hypnotist (or news anchor) is presenting scene after scene and extending time without causing a jarring ripple in the still lake of consciousness.
Coverage.
Whatever a person learns in a trance state, while, for example, watching the news, functions somewhat differently from what he learns while he is awake. Trance learning tends to settle in as a lens, as a way of thereafter viewing the world. It doesn’t add content or knowledge so much as it produces a viewpoint that generates an attitude toward reality.
As in: THESE are the parameters of reality, but THOSE aren’t. I care THIS much, I don’t care THAT much. I care in THIS way, not in THAT way. I’m at THIS distance from what is happening, not at THAT distance.
To enhance this level of teaching, the major networks utilize technology and personnel in the direction of making each edition of the national news, every night, one seamless ribbon of flowing river, with straightaways, corners, turns, adjustments; never breaking, never ceasing until the last breath of the anchor and the closing music fadeout.
That’s coverage.
And the next challenge for them is the integration of commercials, so the viewer truly doesn’t register a shift of consciousness during those moments.
Some day, people will look back on the news of today and say, “How could they have altered the mood during commercials? That was ridiculous. They were really primitive, weren’t they? What were they thinking? The whole idea is to have one uninterrupted experience.”
The blue hues in the news studio set will match up perfectly with the blues in the commercials. The sound and tone of the anchor’s voice will be mirrored by the narrator of the commercial. The pace of the commercial will match the pace of the news.
In fact, it’s already starting to happen. If you watch shows via a DVR, you might notice that fast-forwarding through commercials is a different experience these days. It used to be a cinch to stop the fast-forward when the show began again, because the colors and shapes of the commercials were so different from those of the show. But now, not so much. The commercials are tuned more closely to the programs.
Some day, the meaning of network coverage will include commercials. The one unending stream will sustain the light trance of the viewer.
Major corporate advertisers will realize they don’t want to jolt the viewer out of the show; they want to leave him in the trance. In other words, corporations won’t be so concerned about competing against other corporations. With these companies coming, more and more, under centralized ownership, under the control of big banks, the whole idea will be to tune the attitude of the viewer toward “corporate buying” in general.
Every huge corporation, allied with big government, will aim to condition the viewing audience to the State Oligarchy.
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
Fluoride is a carcinogenic waste product of aluminum. It is also the main ingredient in rat poison, nerve gas and Prozac. This chemical agent has been present in the water supply in America for several generations, but this sick and twisted idea actually began during the Third Reich in Nazi Germany.
“Windsor on Monday joined the growing number of municipalities which have voted to end the decades-old practice of adding fluoride to the water supply in the fight against tooth decay.
“A lot has changed in the last 60 years … fluoride is not the be-all and end-all to prevent tooth decay,” said Mayor Eddie Francis, who voted with the majority.
The motion passed 8-3 late Monday night.
Council’s rejection of fluoride after more than five hours of debate went contrary to the almost unanimous opinion of health and dental experts, as well as others with scientific backgrounds, present among the 27 delegations which spoke at the meeting.”
The article goes on to discuss how the scientists argued back and forth about whether fluoride was beneficial or not. It is important to reiterate that fluoride is very toxic and has no health value for teeth, but even if some of the so called “experts” where correct in saying that it was benign, that would not give them the right to put a drug into everyone’s water supply. If we want drugs in our water, we can take care of the application of those drugs ourselves, we don’t need and shouldn’t trust the government to do that for us.
In October of 2010 the fraudulence of the fluoridation program was exposed when the American Dental Association posted a report in their monthly journal warning about the dangers of fluoride intake in young children.
This development came just months after the Center for Disease Control issued a similar warning. The admissions from these institutions were released quietly and they still maintained that fluoride was necessary to have in the water supply even though it has been known to damage cells and cause serious health issues.
On an even deeper level it is said that fluoride causes calcifications to build up on the pineal gland, the most sacred part of the human brain. This completely shuts off ones center of consciousness as well as weakens the mind and body.
We believe that the world has reached a turning point as the corporate funded and controlled mainline media has become obsolete as humans are now seeking the truth. Intellihub.com™ strives and will continue to uphold it’s duties to inform humanity of what is really taking place in the world around them. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
An unannounced Army drill with military helicopters and machine gun fire simulating a raid on an empty school terrorized a Houston community on Monday.
It was reported that residents were shocked and scared by the sight and sounds of the raid.
“When you see this, you think the worst. When you hear this, you think the worst,” resident Frances Jerrals said. “I felt like I was in a warzone. It was nonstop. I was terrified.”
Apparently, the residents we’re the only ones who were shocked by the drill. The local government was also not informed of the drill and held an emergency meeting to open discussion of the mock attack.
This intense and terrifying drill came only days after a similar drill in Miami.
And it’s announced that live gun fire (with blanks) will be used in yet another mock school raid in Chicago today. According to CBS:
A school shooting drill planned for tomorrow in the far northwestern suburbs has many parents upset.
According to a letter from Cary-Grove High School principal Jay Sargeant, there will be a code red drill at the school on Wednesday.
It will include somebody shooting blanks from a gun in the hallway “in an effort to provide our teachers and students some familiarity with the sound of gunfire.”
The only reason given for these drills so far is poor at best. Cary Police Chief Steven Casstevens said, “From the school’s request, they want to let the students know what the sound of gunshot might be, should that occur in their school.”
It appears that while Bill Gates was content to play the role of Microsoft innovator and billionaire philanthropist early on, he has decided that the second half of his life deserves a more open and slightly more honest twist.
Indeed, in recent years Bill Gates and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have funded a variety of initiatives aimed at reducing population, promoting toxic vaccinations, and now hyping and funding the development of the cashless society.
Indeed, McCoy writes that Gates “hates cash” “because of its effect on people at the opposite end of the wealth spectrum—the world’s poor and unbanked.” Of course, in third world countries that are suffering from starvation, civil war, and abysmal living standards, the answer is clearly “banking.”
If only these nations had more banks and greater access to banks – the private banks of course – then we would finally see the living standards of these nations raised to truly acceptable levels. If only more people had access to digital transactions, then empty bellies would soon be filled.
Sarcasm aside, the push toward a cashless society under the guise of benefiting the poor and underserved is a very real movement. As McCoy points out in his article, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been instrumental in this regard as major backers of the Better Than Cash Alliance – an organization that was established last September whose stated objectives are to reach the following goals by 2017:
Significant commitments by governments, the development community, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector to implement electronic payment solutions instead of cash.
Delivery of demand-driven technical assistance to governments, non-governmental organizations, the development community, or members of the private sector that will dramatically increase the capacity of these stakeholders to deliver end-user-focused payment technologies.
Improved economic security for millions of low-income and poor people, many of whom were previously unbanked, enabling them to use bank or electronic accounts to build savings and assets via innovative payment technologies.
Yet the Better Than Cash Alliance has more than just corporate and private sector sponsors as one of the key founding members and financiers is, in fact, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a “government” agency that answers directly to the U.S. Secretary of State. It has been understood for some time that USAID is nothing more than CIA front operation for intelligence gathering and as a facilitation mechanism for the CIA funding of foreign governments and organizations.
In addition, the Better Than Cash Alliance founder and financier roster contains the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), the UN’s “capital investment agency” reserved for use with the “least developed” nations.
Yet, even without the establishment of the Better Than Cash Alliance or the recent comments by Bill Gates, it is very clear that the world is moving in the direction of an entirely cashless society. I, myself, have written many articles on this issue.
Unfortunately, what is being introduced as a method of convenience and upward social mobility will soon give way to mandates and eradication of choice.
The creation of the Better Than Cash Alliance and the international push for digital transactions is one more step toward the ultimate goal of the Cashless Society and the requirement that even the most personal individual information such as iris scans, fingerprints, vein scans, facial photographs, and even DNA swabs be surrendered for the purpose of data security.
Obviously, in a society whose citizens are able to carry and make transactions with cash, there is still some semblance of anonymity available to them. There is still the opportunity to purchase staples such as food and water (via third parties if necessary) even if a system of exclusivity were to be introduced and certain people were prohibited from making purchases directly.
In a cashless system, however, an enormous amount of trust is placed in the hands of the government agencies, banks, and corporations that would then control the money for the “convenience” of the unwitting soul who has sacrificed his own personal responsibility and control for the luxury of his convenience. If even one of these institutions decide, for whatever reason, that the account of the user should be frozen, disconnected, or discontinued, the ability to purchase the basic necessities will disappear. That is, it will disappear if there is no longer the option of cash.
When all financial transactions eventually become digital, it is only a matter of time before banks, corporations, and governments begin to force citizens to bend to their will with the threat of cutting off accounts as punishment for resistance or refusal.
This is precisely why we need both resistance and refusal now, before it is too late.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
Who has to pay the bankers in Iceland’s banking crash? Not the Icelanders. Different from countries such as Spain and Ireland, Iceland decided that taxpayers should not pay for the excesses of an industry that had grown disproportionately, but most importantly, that had ramped up the country’s debt to a point where upwards of 90 % of the debt written under the country’s name was actually bank debt.
Iceland will compensate the British and Dutch two of the countries that had bet more heavily in the fictitious financial products offered by banks out of Iceland. The citizens said no twice through referendums, and now, five years after the collapse of its banking system, a Luxembourg court just gave the northern nation the reassurance that they did what needed to be done to get rid of the bankers’ tentacles.
The Court of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) believes that the country did not violate any law when it refused to return to 300,000 savers money deposited in foreign entities offering some interests that then seemed to good to pass. “It is a victory for democracy. It sends the message that banks can not reap the benefits and send the bill to taxpayers when things go wrong, “says Magnus Skúlasson, an Icelandic economist.
The court, which also represented Norway and Liechtenstein, provides a very interesting nuance: Iceland is not obligated to pay as “the deposit insurance fund was unable to meet its obligations in the event of a systemic crisis “. The decision by the court would be equal to the FDIC fund not having enough cash to ensure the banking entities in the United States, with bankers demanding that U.S. taxpayers assumed the responsibility of a carefully crafted collapse of the American banking system. Just as in the case of Iceland, U.S. taxpayers would not be liable for the banks’ misconduct and therefore they wouldn’t have to pick up the tab.
A community spokesman was quick to answer that Brussels clings to the obligations of the deposit insurance funds that remain “valid also if there is a systemic crisis.” Nevertheless, the European Commission says it needs time to study the ruling. “The ruling is also good for the Netherlands and the UK. If they had won, it would mean that the nation-state is responsible for all bank deposits, something no country wants, “adds Jon Danielsson of the London School of Economics.
After the bankruptcy, the governments in London and Amsterdam used their coffers to compensate customers of the Icelandic bank. Shortly after they began the legal process that came to an end yesterday, as the ruling that Reykjavik considered “satisfactory”, does not admit any appeals.
Despite the support of the courts, Iceland has ended up paying some of the money. Reykjavik has already repaid about 3,300 million euros, about half of the total paid in Icesave, that corresponds to debt that the government itself was actually responsible for. The money corresponds to the debt from Landsbanki, one of three banks that failed in 2008 and led the entire country’s banking system to bankruptcy. The amount paid is more than 90% of the guaranteed minimum that the State was obliged to return.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute.
Does a shadowy group of obscenely wealthy elitists control the world? Do men and women with enormous amounts of money really run the world from behind the scenes? The answer might surprise you. Most of us tend to think of money as a convenient way to conduct transactions, but the truth is that it also represents power and control. And today we live in a neo-feudalist system in which the super rich pull all the strings. When I am talking about the ultra-wealthy, I am not just talking about people that have a few million dollars. As you will see later in this article, the ultra-wealthy have enough money sitting in offshore banks to buy all of the goods and services produced in the United States during the course of an entire year and still be able to pay off the entire U.S. national debt. That is an amount of money so large that it is almost incomprehensible. Under this ne0-feudalist system, all the rest of us are debt slaves, including our own governments. Just look around – everyone is drowning in debt, and all of that debt is making the ultra-wealthy even wealthier. But the ultra-wealthy don’t just sit on all of that wealth. They use some of it to dominate the affairs of the nations. The ultra-wealthy own virtually every major bank and every major corporation on the planet. They use a vast network of secret societies, think tanks and charitable organizations to advance their agendas and to keep their members in line. They control how we view the world through their ownership of the media and their dominance over our education system. They fund the campaigns of most of our politicians and they exert a tremendous amount of influence over international organizations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. When you step back and take a look at the big picture, there is little doubt about who runs the world. It is just that most people don’t want to admit the truth.
The ultra-wealthy don’t run down and put their money in the local bank like you and I do. Instead, they tend to stash their assets in places where they won’t be taxed such as the Cayman Islands. According to a report that was released last summer, the global elite have up to 32 TRILLION dollars stashed in offshore banks around the globe.
U.S. GDP for 2011 was about 15 trillion dollars, and the U.S. national debt is sitting at about 16 trillion dollars, so you could add them both together and you still wouldn’t hit 32 trillion dollars.
And of course that does not even count the money that is stashed in other locations that the study did not account for, and it does not count all of the wealth that the global elite have in hard assets such as real estate, precious metals, art, yachts, etc.
The global elite have really hoarded an incredible amount of wealth in these troubled times. The following is from an article on the Huffington Post website…
Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.
The study estimating the extent of global private financial wealth held in offshore accounts – excluding non-financial assets such as real estate, gold, yachts and racehorses – puts the sum at between $21 and $32 trillion.
The research was carried out for pressure group Tax Justice Network, which campaigns against tax havens, by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co.
He used data from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and central banks.
But as I mentioned previously, the global elite just don’t have a lot of money. They also basically own just about every major bank and every major corporation on the entire planet.
According to an outstanding NewScientist article, a study of more than 40,000 transnational corporations conducted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich discovered that a very small core group of huge banks and giant predator corporations dominate the entire global economic system…
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.
The researchers found that this core group consists of just 147 very tightly knit companies…
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
The following are the top 25 banks and corporations at the heart of this “super-entity”. You will recognize many of the names on the list…
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
The ultra-wealthy elite often hide behind layers and layers of ownership, but the truth is that thanks to interlocking corporate relationships, the elite basically control almost every Fortune 500 corporation.
The amount of power and control that this gives them is hard to describe.
Unfortunately, this same group of people have been running things for a very long time. For example, New York City Mayor John F. Hylan said the following during a speech all the way back in 1922…
The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.
They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.
These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.
These international bankers created the central banks of the world (including the Federal Reserve), and they use those central banks to get the governments of the world ensnared in endless cycles of debtfrom which there is no escape. Government debt is a way to “legitimately” take money from all of us, transfer it to the government, and then transfer it into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.
Today, Barack Obama and almost all members of Congress absolutely refuse to criticize the Fed, but in the past there have been some brave members of Congress that have been willing to take a stand. For example, the following quote is from a speech that Congressman Louis T. McFadden delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 10, 1932…
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board has cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Sadly, most Americans still believe that the Federal Reserve is a “federal agency”, but that is simply not correct. The following comes from factcheck.org…
The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System. These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.
According to researchers that have looked into the ownership of the big Wall Street banks that dominate the Fed, the same names keep coming up over and over: the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Lazards, the Schiffs and the royal families of Europe.
But ultra-wealthy international bankers have not just done this kind of thing in the United States. Their goal was to create a global financial system that they would dominate and control. Just check out what Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley once wrote…
[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.
Sadly, most Americans have never even heard of the Bank for International Settlements, but it is at the very heart of the global financial system. The following is from Wikipedia…
As an organization of central banks, the BIS seeks to make monetary policy more predictable and transparent among its 58 member central banks. While monetary policy is determined by each sovereign nation, it is subject to central and private banking scrutiny and potentially to speculation that affects foreign exchange rates and especially the fate of export economies. Failures to keep monetary policy in line with reality and make monetary reforms in time, preferably as a simultaneous policy among all 58 member banks and also involving the International Monetary Fund, have historically led to losses in the billions as banks try to maintain a policy using open market methods that have proven to be based on unrealistic assumptions.
The ultra-wealthy have also played a major role in establishing other important international institutions such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. In fact, the land for the United Nations headquarters in New York City was purchased and donated by John D. Rockefeller.
The international bankers are “internationalists” and they are very proud of that fact.
The elite also dominate the education system in the United States. Over the years, the Rockefeller Foundation and other elitist organizations have poured massive amounts of money into Ivy League schools. Today, Ivy League schools are considered to be the standard against which all other colleges and universities in America are measured, and the last four U.S. presidents were educated at Ivy League schools.
The elite also exert a tremendous amount of influence through various secret societies (Skull and Bones, the Freemasons, etc.), through some very powerful think tanks and social clubs (the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Bohemian Grove, Chatham House, etc.), and through a vast network of charities and non-governmental organizations (the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, etc.).
But for a moment, I want to focus on the power the elite have over the media. In a previous article, I detailed how just six monolithic corporate giants control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. These giant corporations own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.
Considering the fact that the average American watches 153 hours of television a month, the influence of these six giant corporations should not be underestimated. The following are just some of the media companies that these corporate giants own…
Time Warner
Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine
Walt Disney
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books
Viacom
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1
News Corporation
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan
CBS Corporation
CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network
NBC Universal
Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video
And of course the elite own most of our politicians as well. The following is a quote from journalist Lewis Lapham…
“The shaping of the will of Congress and the choosing of the American president has become a privilege reserved to the country’s equestrian classes, a.k.a. the 20% of the population that holds 93% of the wealth, the happy few who run the corporations and the banks, own and operate the news and entertainment media, compose the laws and govern the universities, control the philanthropic foundations, the policy institutes, the casinos, and the sports arenas.”
Have you ever wondered why things never seem to change in Washington D.C. no matter who we vote for?
Well, it is because both parties are owned by the establishment.
It would be nice to think that the American people are in control of who runs things in the U.S., but that is not how it works in the real world.
Our politicians are not stupid – they are going to be very good to the people that can give them the giant piles of money that they need for their campaigns. And the people that can do that are the ultra-wealthy and the giant corporations that the ultra-wealthy control.
Are you starting to get the picture?
There is a reason why the ultra-wealthy are referred to as “the establishment”. They have set up a system that greatly benefits them and that allows them to pull the strings.
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
There is so much more that could be said about all of this. In fact, an entire library of books could be written about the power and the influence of the ultra-wealthy international bankers that run the world.
But hopefully this is enough to at least get some conversations started.
So what do you think about all of this? Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below…
OH the blatant hypocrisy of the politicians and those in government in Washington. When they want you to be afraid of civilians with semi-automatic rifles they refer to them as “assault weapons,” but when they want to purchase similar weapons for their people, they refer to them as “personal defense weapons.” This is documented in the latest request for a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP) by the Department of Homeland Security on the Federal Business Opportunities website.
If you will notice, DHS is also soliciting for “commercial items” that use “5.56x45mm NATO ammunition.” Again, the hypocrisy is astounding. Aren’t we being told by people like Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that these are “military style weapons,” not “commercial items”? Isn’t she the one proclaiming that these don’t need to be on our streets, but in the theater of war? Yet, it appears those in government want to take a “Do as I say, not as I do” approach to telling us what we can and cannot have when it pertains to the Second Amendment. They want them on the streets, in the airports, at the bus stop and on trains, as long as it’s in the hands of their hirelings.
Additionally, the solicitation refers to these “commercial items” as ““Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” In other words, these weapons can be set for single shot or multiple shots with one pull of the trigger. DHS is also requesting high capacity magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”
Following a major gun control law passed in New York City, New York State Senator Greg Ball (R) brought attention to the weapons request in a press release. Ball also pointed to the civilian version of these weapons and how they have been used as “personal defense weapons” when he said:
“Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self defense. On top of that, a recent story reports that two RIT students who were legal gun owners were protected by an AR-15. The story may have had a very tragic ending, had Governor Cuomo’s anti-self defense bill been in full effect. If the story is accurate, their legal ownership of this modern sporting rifle evidently saved their lives. While Cuomo says ‘it doesn’t take 10 bullets to kill a deer’, it evidently only took an unloaded AR-15 to protect a household. Luckily these criminals struck before Governor Cuomo’s gun grab was fully unleashed.”
While people like Dianne Feinstein and Vice President Joe Biden think the American public aren’t capable of handling such weapons and don’t need them for personal defense, that is exactly what DHS is getting them for. I ask you, why do DHS agents need these weapons? Why do they need high capacity magazines? Are they facing a major threat here in America they have not made the public aware of? Why is Joe Biden not telling them that they are “dangerous” and even though they may know what they are doing with them, they should instead carry a double barreled shotgun? That’s all they need for protection anyways, right?
Sen. Feinstein said last week that the long term goal of her legislation is to “dry up the supply of these weapons.” Reportsabounded about the federal agencies acquiring massive amounts of ammunitionlast year, including DHS. Currently this is a low time of year for production of ammunition, but do you think these requests have anything to do with it? How about firearms? Yes, there is a tremendous demand by the public, but when the government gets involved and starts spending our money on these weapons, what do you think the purpose is in acquiring them? I’m not drawing a particular conclusion. I just simply ask you to take a step back and evaluate what we are being spoon fed. If you are awake, you will make appropriate measures for your future.
If Patriots had a “most wanted” list, these people would be at the top of it.
The alleged crimes of this Dirty Dozen? Betraying the American people from within by wantonly dismantling the Constitution, collapsing the economy, and creating an encroaching police state that rewards the few and restricts the many. Each and every person on this list could rightfully be investigated for Treason against the United States of America.
This Gallery of Dishonor is by no means inclusive. It contains, in alphabetical order, some of the most despicable but certainly not all.
Meet the Patriot’s Most Wanted:
Ben Bernanke
Ben Bernanke, collapsing the economy since 2006. He became the Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Bush and has maintained his appointment under Obama (unusual in that a Republican appointment continued to serve under a Democrat president). Mr. QE-to-Infinity has recently received a license to print money indefinitely to institute the most recent round of Quantitative Easing, which Senator Ron Paul referred to as a “full-time counterfeiting operation”. Unfortunately the only ones eased by this are the members of the Big Banking Cartel –everyday folks need not apply. Under Bernanke’s leadership, the “too-big-to-fail” banks were financially bailed out, while the average American was left to flounder as housing values plummeted, mortgages were defaulted on and personal bankruptcies skyrocketed.
Michael Bloomberg
New York City’s very own soda pop Nazi, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a career out of micromanaging the lives of the citizens of the city. Bloomberg has decided that he must take control of the health of New York City residents and has done so by disallowing the sale of sugary beverages over 16 ounces. He also had NYC hospitals lock up baby formula and track when formula is dispensed in an effort to coerce new mothers to exclusively breastfeed. And speaking of new mothers, there have been numerous quiet sexual harassment lawsuits filed against Bloomberg by women under his employ, dating back to 1997, when a female employ described telling Bloomberg of an unplanned pregnancy, to which he allegedly responded “Kill it!” and “Great, number 16!” (Not treason, but saying that type of thing would certainly be indicative of a man’s character.) Back to treason, last summer, Bloomberg stated the NYPD officers should go on strike until the citizens voluntarily disarmed themselves. Under his “leadership” New York City has the strictest gun laws in the state, requiring permits, licensing and registration. This left the citizenry largely disarmed and unable to protect themselves in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Never one to let a good crisis go to waste, Bloomberg rounded up celebrities to put together a propaganda video calling out for even more gun control just days after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
George W. Bush
It was under the watch of erstwhile President Bush that the largest terrorist act in American history took place in our own airspace on September 11, 2001. This inside job was rapidly followed by the “Patriot Act” – in truth the most unpatriotic legislation that had existed up to that point and the first serious blow suffered by the Constitution. The Patriot Act was rolled out to save America from terrorists, allowing surveillance and invasions of privacy without the hassle of pesky little inconveniences like probable cause and search warrants. Bush and 7 of his cohorts (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo) were find guilty in absentia last year in Malaysia, convicted of war crimes, including torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hillary Clinton
Long-suffering wife of former President Bill Clinton, former Senator from New York and current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has had a varied political career. Recently on the hook for the Benghazi massacre, in which 4 Americans lost their lives due to negligence, she has been in the hotseat numerous other times. A noted warmonger, she has been accused of lying to Congress about the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein, she has consistently expressed her belief that Iran is a nuclear threat to the United States and has been fingered by Wikileaks for ordering spying on UN Officials. Other possible lapses in integrity include allegations of lying to the FEC about contributions, the hiring of unsavory advisor Sandy Berger (a convicted felon) and substantial financial involvement with pharmaceutical companies, whose causes she champions.
Jon Corzine
Neck deep in government and banking, Jon Corzine was accused of using 1.6 billion dollars of customer money to cover his company’s shortfalls. Yes, 1.6 BILLION. Shortly thereafter, the company, MF Global filed for bankruptcy and that money has completely vaporized. A House Congressional hearing found the former New Jersey senator and governor at fault for the failure of the company, but he has managed to evade criminal charges. (Could that be related to the fact that Eric Holder’s former law firm represented Corzine’s now-defunct company?)
Andrew Cuomo
Leading the charge against the 2nd Amendment,New York governor Andrew Cuomo recently spearheaded the most aggressive attack on gun rights yet, proudly signing the NY SAFE Act. This unConstitutional legislation limits magazine capacities, narrowly redefines the term “assault weapons”, requires background checks for all gun-related purchases, including ammunition, and obligates mental health professionals to become government snitches. (Amusingly, the hastily passed bill does not exempt police officers, ostensibly making criminals out of every one of New York’s finest.)
Rahm Emmanuel
Mayor of Obama’s old stomping ground, Chicago, Emanuel’s city has dubious honor of being simultaneously crowned the gun control capitol of the United States and the Homicide Capitol of the United States. Classic Emanuel quote: “If you are known as maybe a possible terrorist you cannot buy a handgun in America.” Emanuel served on the board of the Freddie Mac while Bill Clinton was in office, during which time the organization was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. Currently, Emanuel is browbeating banks with Mafia tactics to “suggest” that they cease lending money to gun manufacturers with accounts in good standing.
Dianne Feinstein
Possibly the most hated woman in Congress right now, Dianne Feinstein has made no bones about her mission to disarm America. The senior Senator from California was responsible for the 1995 Assault Weapons Ban and has just introduced a bill that would prohibit the manufacture or importation of 158 specific military-style “assault” rifles, ban magazines of more than 10 rounds and introduce a federal registry for all owners who currently possess the aforementioned weapons and magazines. She has supported the extension of the unPatriot Act and was the co-sponsor of PIPA, one of several assaults on internet freedom.
Eric Holder
US Attorney General Eric Holder is all about the law, at least if those laws apply to other people. As for himself, he seems to feel that he is personally immune to those pesky little restrictions. He has announced the Department of InJustice will still pursue prosecution of those terrifying criminals who have a state-authorized toke, deeming that the state laws are trumped by federal ones. He is an adamant supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban, unless, of course, those assault weapons are supplied to Mexican drug cartels. While 14 lower-ranking officials were found guilty in the Fast and Furious scandal, slippery AG Holder remained relatively unscathed, even though he was held in contempt by the House of Representatives by refusing to cooperate in the investigation. If you are curious as to why the banksters seem to have blanket immunity for fraud and outright theft of funds, perhaps it has something to do with a glaring conflict of interest – Holder’s former law firm, Covington & Burling, represented MF Global, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and UBS.
Janet Napolitano
Not so fondly known as Big Sis, Janet Napolitano is the nosy Secretary of Homeland Security. Encouraging an environment of ratting out your neighbor with her “See Something, Say Something” ads on screens in Walmart, Napolitano seems to have an extreme aversion to the right to privacy. She has generalized as potential terrorists so-called “Right Wing Extremists”, veterans, and a wide assortment of other guilty-until-maybe-proven-innocent groups. Under Napolitano’s reign the TSA has stepped out of the airport and into other public transit areas like train and bus stations, as well as large sporting events. She is also a proponent of surveillance drone use in American airspace for “public safety”.
Barack Hussein Obama
The President of the United States,(despite his questionable eligibility) Obama has done more to demolish liberty during his first four years in office than all of his predecessors combined. Despite his deadly drone assassinations, his dedicated assault on the Constitution and his dubious personal background, Obama was re-elected for another 4 year term of Constitutional destruction. He has proven his willingness to circumvent the checks and balances of our system by sidestepping Congress with a dizzying, ever-increasing number of Executive Orders signed thus far in his presidency. He has even gone so far as to boast about his habit of going around Congress, memorably stating: ”we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will. I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress.”
‘ Charles Schumer
A gun-grabber from way back, this US Senator from New York recently likened guns to kiddie porn. “No amendment can be absolute. I believe you can be pro-gun and pro gun safety, just like you can be in favor of free speech but also against child pornography.” Schumer had his finger in the gun-control pie, co-sponsoring the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. He was one of the few to oppose the Vitter Amendment, passed post-Katrina, which prohibits the confiscation of legal firearms during a disaster.
So, should these people be investigated for Treason against the United States? You be the judge. And feel free to share more nominations in the comments below.
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca
North Korea is experiencing a horrible famine brought on by the insane policies that the regions government has been forcing on its population for decades.
Like many, this government celebrates itself as a “democratic peoples republic”, and claims to have the poor and hungry as their top priority. Yet, despite there being a massive military budget and a rich ruling class, the peasants who are barely allowed to keep any of their own income are starving to the point of cannibalism.
It is important to add that even if this government were somehow benevolent, which would be a true anomaly, they would still not have the ability to efficiently calculate how much food needed to go each region.
One person, or one small group of people cannot possibly predict where resources will be needed or how much will be needed. Likewise, a voting collective cannot accomplish this feat either, because to do so would be an attempt at predicting the whims of millions of people in the future, taking into account personal preferences, births, deaths, changes in weather or environment, or anything else from the long list of things that can happen in life.
The only way that this problem can be solved is by allowing the people to produce and trade freely amongst themselves. The less that this process is restricted, the more wealthy the people of the country will become.
“A starving man in North Korea has been executed after murdering his two children for food, reports from inside the secretive state claim. A ‘hidden famine’ in the farming provinces of North and South Hwanghae is believed to have killed up to 10,000 people and there are fears that incidents of cannibalism have risen.
The grim story is just one to emerge as residents battle starvation after a drought hit farms and shortages were compounded by party officials confiscating food. Undercover reporters from Asia Press told the Sunday Times that one man dug up his grandchild’s corpse and ate it. Another, boiled his own child for food.
Despite reports of the widespread famine, Kim Jong Un, 30, has spent vast sums of money on two rocket launches in recent months. There are fears he is planning a nuclear test in protest at a UN Security Council punishment for the recent rocket launches and to counter what it sees as US hostility.
One informant was quoted as saying: ‘In my village in May a man who killed his own two children and tried to eat them was executed by a firing squad.’”
This article suggests that the famine is simply the result of a drought, but the drought is just a recent event that has pushed a systematic problem over the edge.
For years the North Korean government has been notorious for poorly allocating the natural resources that they have put themselves in charge of, creating mass starvation among the general population.
Just a few months ago, it was reported that North Korean farmers are only allowed to keep half of what they produce. Even then, the government was only forced to give them that much because the prior rate of almost total taxation was exacerbating famine conditions.
“The move to liberalise agriculture under Kim Jong-un, who succeeded his father in December last year, would reverse a crackdown on private production that started in 2005. The claim by the Reuters news agency comes amid suggestions that Mr Kim is considering reforms to boost the impoverished state’s economy.
“Peasants will have incentive to grow more food. They can keep and sell in the market about 30-50 percent of their harvest depending on the region,” said the source. At present, most farm output is sold to the government at a state auction price that has diverged from the market rate.”
You don’t see this kind of problem in South Korea, where they don’t have a centrally planned economy, at least, it is not centrally planned to the extent that North Korea is.
The truth behind all of this is revealed a few more paragraphs down in that same article:
“North Korea wants to attract Chinese investment to help it overcome tough sanctions imposed in retaliation for its nuclear tests. Kim also aims to deliver on a promise to make the North a “prosperous” nation by 2012 and to banish memories of his father’s austere 17-year rule. But it is unclear how far Mr Kim can go in liberalising the economy without losing his family’s firm grip on power, most independent analysts say.”
Allowing the economy to become more free by removing restrictions on average citizens to trade and keep their own income would diminish the power of the central government. This is why governments love gaining as much control as they possibly can over the economy.
North Korea is going through a process that Russia, China and many other regimes of the communist variety have went through in the past. In many societies around the world where there are less restrictions, the people can get through a drought without eating one another.
While there is no place on the planet right now that allows human beings to be as free as they should, there are still varying degrees of control, and this is a perfect example that can be used to show the conditions that are created when a certain level of power is achieved by a central authority.
J.G. Vibes is the author of an 87 chapter counter-culture textbook called Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance, a staff writer and reporter for The Intel Hub and host of a show called Voluntary Hippie Radio.
You can keep up with his work, which includes free podcasts, free e-books & free audiobooks at his website www.aotmr.com
We believe that the world has reached a turning point as the corporate funded and controlled mainline media has become obsolete as humans are now seeking the truth. Intellihub.com™ strives and will continue to uphold it’s duties to inform humanity of what is really taking place in the world around them. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
To understand even a little bit about real psychiatry, versus the false picture, you have to know that someone running around the streets naked and screaming has nothing to do with a mental disorder.
If you can’t grasp that, you’ll always have a lingering sense that psychiatry is on the right track. It isn’t, and never was. Not from its earliest days, and not now, when it has the full backing and force of the federal government behind it.
Psychiatry is the kind of all-out fraud few people grasp.
In a moment of weakness and exhaustion, Allen Frances, the most famous and honored psychiatrist in America at the time (2000), understood part of it. He told Gary Greenberg of Wired Magazine, “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”
BANG.
That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”
After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”
This was an admission that the bible of the profession, the DSM, the latest edition of which Frances himself had led in compiling, could not draw separations between the 297 official mental disorders listed in it. It was, in other words, a pretense. The whole bible.
In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, spelled out the fraud even more clearly.
Here it is.
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]
Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.
You can sway and tap dance all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.
But you see, we’re still left with the naked man who’s running around the street screaming. What is he? Doesn’t he have a mental disorder?
He does not, because the term “mental disorder” isn’t just a colloquial phrase, it’s a technical designation, and it underpins everything that psychiatry is. And there is no basis for its diagnosis. None.
There are many reasons the man may be running naked in the street. If he has a blood clot or lesion on his brain, if he has been poisoned, if he folded up and left this world as a child after he received a vaccine, if he has been pushed over the edge by Paxil or Zoloft, if he has been brutalized and is terrified, if he has been given electric shocks by a psychiatrist, if he is on Vicodin, if he has snorted cocaine laced with some horrible filler, if he has been driven mad through starvation, if he has been harassed by people who are threatening his life, he could be running naked in the street.
That is a matter for honest and complete discovery. It isn’t an occasion to slap on the label, “mental disorder.”
Now that President Obama has decided the expansion of mental health services must be effected to protect us all from people with guns, we are looking up the immediate road at government programs in schools, among other disastrous innovations.
Children are concocted as a prime target for early diagnosis of non-existent mental disorders, because in the past, a number of these children, diagnosed and drugged by psychiatrists, went on to kill people as a result of the drugs’ actions on their brains. That’s called irony. It’s also called a crime, in the very real sense that psychiatrists contributed mightily to the killings.
So now, every child in school who twitches the wrong way or picks up a bubble-gum toy shaped like a pistol, or points his finger at a friend and says Bang, or looks sad and lonely for ten minutes at the back of the class on a rainy Tuesday, or draws pictures when he should be adding numbers in his notebook, or wears odd clothes, or gets angry for any reason at all, or objects to taking a vaccine, or wears a jacket with a small American flag sewn to the shoulder, or doesn’t play well with others, or makes a positive statement in class about the Bill of Rights, or reminds a teacher of a little criminal in a movie, or has a bottle opener in his pocket, or dreams in class about designing a rocket that will take people to Mars…can be referred to a counselor, who in turn will refer him to a psychiatrist, who will make some sort of off-the-shelf diagnosis, which will travel with the child for the rest of his life, making the child believe he has a brain problem, and the psychiatrist will prescribe that child drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Zoloft, Paxil, or Prozac, drugs that scramble neurotransmitter systems and can very certainly cause that child to go violent.
That is the reality.
When Obama announced his intention, in the wake of Sandy Hook, to go nuclear with expanded mental-health services across the country, the president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Dilip Jeste, praised the program.
“I am strongly encouraged by the President’s recommendations because they include a focus on improving mental health,” Jeste said to a Psychiatric News reporter.
The Psychiatric News article continues: “A new initiative outlined by Obama would provide training for school personnel and help ensure that young people who need help are referred to treatment…[and this new program would] train 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults.”
What we are looking at here is wolves circling prey.
If you don’t think so, consider these hidden facts about Ritalin, which is normally considered to be a much lighter drug than any of the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil) or the drugs given for so-called Bipolar Disorder (Valproate, Lithium).
Ritalin, manufactured by Novartis, is the close cousin to speed which is given to perhaps four million American schoolchildren for a condition called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).
ADD and ADHD, for which no organic causes have ever been found, are touted as disease-conditions that afflict the young, causing hyperactivity, unmanageability, and learning problems. Of course, when you name a disorder or a syndrome and yet can find no single provable organic cause for it, you have nothing more than a loose collection of behaviors with an arbitrary title.
Correction: you also have a pharmaceutical bonanza.
Dr. Peter Breggin, referring to an official directory of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-III-R, writes that withdrawal from amphetamine-type drugs, including Ritalin, can cause “depression, anxiety, and irritability as well as sleep problems, fatigue, and agitation.” Breggin then remarks, “The individual may become suicidal in response to the depression.”
The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and after awhile, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.
A firm and objective medical review needs to be done in all of the school shootings, to determine how many of the shooters were on, or had at one time been on, Ritalin.
In his landmark classic, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”
Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate”) [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.
If psychiatrists are the wolves—and they are—and children are the sheep, then what do you call the parents who permit their children to be captured by these marauders?
Am I saying that “mental health,” as defined by organized psychiatry, and backed by the federal and state governments, is a vast criminal enterprise, rather than a science?
Yes, absolutely. I’m saying that because that’s what it is.
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
I’ve explored and written on food politics for years, using articles and direct links back to my sources to show evidence that the Big Agra-Big-Food-Big Pharma-Big Government complex is a pernicious corporatocracy with various satellites in place to conduct its dirty work of politicking, plundering, deceptive marketing, and purposefully miseducating the masses. I long ago declared that the food corporatocracy’s nutritional-food satellites such as the two ADAs (American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association), the USDA, and the FDA are criminal organizations. The American Dietetic Association recently changed its name to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND).
Against this backdrop, we must ask: what is the role of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND)—the nation’s largest association of nutrition professionals—in preventing or at least stemming the tide of diet-related health problems? What responsibility does this influential group of registered dietitians bear to be a leading advocate for policy changes to make eating healthfully more accessible? Does forming partnerships with the food industry compromise such a group’s credibility? And what does the food industry gain from such partnerships?
Why does it matter? As this report will show, the food industry’s deep infiltration of the nation’s top nutrition organization raises serious questions not only about that profession’s credibility, but also about its policy positions.
The report is another in a long chain of scathing indictments against the corrupt corporate state that has turned a mostly healthy populace into a sickly and obese society that has become disgustingly dependent on the pharmaceutical-psychiatric-medical machine that has long neglected unprofitable preventative care measures in favor of profitable standard medical protocols that address symptoms in the short term so as to make people patients for life.
You’ll note that Simon, in her study, points to her friend Marion Nestle, a writer and author and long-time antagonist of Big Food, and a dissector of all things food politics unless it indicts government as one of the culprits. Make no mistake – both Simon and Nestle are statists to the core. Neither of them have challenged how the Big Food corporate state became so omnipotent in the first place. The entire world of food politics in which they live, breathe, and swim is littered with the carcasses of government policy and dictocrat decrees. Still, they refuse to acknowledge the depth of the food politics for which they claim expertise, and they consistently maintain a position that their roles are to influence and change policy. Yes, policy = politics. They are self-declared politicians and they make a financial living off of politicking.
On page 23 of the report, Simon describes how the annual AND meeting was akin to a junk food industry showcase. Then she goes on to say the “positive” aspects of the annual meeting were the folks hawking “Meatless Mondays” and the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society is another corrupt satellite of the government-pharmaceutical-medical establishment, and its mother ship, Big Cancer, is another quasi-governmental machine that profits immensely off of keeping people sick and uninformed. Apparently, while carefully studying the AND’s long list of Big Food and pharmaceutical sponsors, Simon neglects to mention the similar sponsors of the American Cancer Society. Additionally, Meatless Monday is a statist concept with government-public health influence, and various local governments often try to ram this down the throat of their local constituency.
Near the end of the report (page 38), Simon backpedals and waxes poetically about personnel changes at the AND that are moving the organization along a path to change. She is setting the stage for the notion that the AND can revive its tarnished reputation (page 38). Statists like Simon are fond of revealing the evidence of gross misconduct and then ramping up an opposition cloaked in apparent principles, but always, they leave the door open for a future alliance and a potential consulting gig. This report has a lot of valid bark and recites much useful evidence, but there exists no bite whatsoever.
Due to the prodigious influence of Big Food and its cornucopia of marketing lies, the entire Registered Dietician profession is made up of legions of hypnotized automatons who have been reciting the standard, politicized text for decades, while their helpless victims – uneducated, sick people – have paid the price in terms of their lives, whether it be quality or quantity. Don’t expect the self-declared soldiers of food politics, like Simon and Nestle, to strike at the root of the problems anytime soon.
Karen De Coster, CPA is a libertarian accounting/finance professional and freelance writer covering food freedom, regulatory abuses and free market economics. Please visit and support her personal blog at KarenDeCoster.com and follow her on Twitter @karendecoster.
If there is one certainty in the investment world, it is that every advisor has an opinion on Gold, the precious yellow metal that we cannot seem to avoid having in our portfolio, based on its stellar performance over the past decade. It would not be such a topic for discussion, if it were not for the fact that these opinions typically range over very wide extremes, with incredibly complex explanations justifying either a dramatic rise or fall in Gold valuations over the next few years.
Since Gold over 2012 was hovering within a fairly tight range, at least for Gold, the range of prognostications for 2013 and beyond are both entertaining and conflicting in their insight tones. There is wide disagreement, but future bragging rights can only be earned if you are willing to go out on a limb. Most all guesses start with a general consensus that Gold’s prospects will be mixed in 2013, perhaps, a gradual rise in value, as the global economy slowly recovers. From that point, estimates vary in line with how major influencing factors may pan out down the road.
Let’s start with a popular technical chart that is being bandied about Gold-bug circles:
Gold prices hit their high when the European debt crisis came unglued in late 2011, establishing the upward “Overbought” channel boundary depicted on the diagram. For the past year, Gold, however, has languished, as uncertainty gradually seeped out of the market. Technical analysts now believe that the lower “Oversold” channel boundary is a harbinger of good things to come. Could Gold run up to $2,200, a conservative guess, or top out at a more aggressive value like $3,400? You be the judge.
It is very easy to draw lines on a chart, but, as every investor knows, it is the fundamentals that drive market valuations and determine the eventual direction that prices will take. The current thinking is that inflation will drive values eventually. When the economy heats up, interest rates will have to rise, and rising prices will take Gold right along with them.
If some unexpected crisis occurs in the Arab world or in the Euro arrangement or anywhere else, for that matter, then the “safe haven” status of Gold will attract investors in droves, driving up the price once more. Currencies and Gold are often correlated in many ways, too, and the word on the street is that currency wars are in the offing. Look for central bankers to create a storm on paper assets, and Gold always provides a safe shelter in such situations.
What are some of the opinions along these fundamental grounds?
Some analysts point to the U.S. housing market, claiming that it is coming back, soon to resume a steady 2% average annual appreciation rate once again. Interest rates would follow, as would inflation, and Gold would be the obvious beneficiary;
Gold bears, however, stress that the enormous debt in the global system is the real problem. They suggest that Gold is extremely overvalued, but they have been suggesting this hypothesis for years. They may eventually be right, but others counter that central bankers will continue to print money, rather than endure deflation. Gold wins in this argument, if it is correct;
The contrary opinion focuses on China and India. Most argue that there is pent up demand for Gold across the globe, but especially in these two countries, where burgeoning middle class families equate status with Gold ownership. Both countries plan to levy consumption-type taxes on the metal in the near term, which may lead to a slackening of demand, i.e., lower prices for Gold;
Goldman Sachs shocked everyone in January with a $1,200 price projection for Gold by 2018. Oops!
Will Gold prices fall or rebound higher? If we knew that answer, we could all be rich!
By Forextraders.com – visit their website for more information
Home
RSS Feed
Newsletter
Bookmark Us
Facebook
Twitter
Apparently, “Defend yourself with a legal firearm” is not part of the new Department of Homeland Security curriculum. They have now resorted to a training video that encourages you to use scissors to protect yourself in the event that you are a victim of a shooting. Perhaps this is an upgrade from them instructing border patrol agents to run and hide.
Ben Bernanke
Michael Bloomberg
George W. Bush
Jon Corzine
Andrew Cuomo
Rahm Emmanuel
Dianne Feinstein
Janet Napolitano
Barack Hussein Obama
Charles Schumer
